PURPOSE: We aimed to analyse the influence of mammographic breast density on background enhancement (BE) at magnetic resonance (MR) mammography in pre- and postmenopausal women. In addition, we questioned predictability of contrast-enhancement dynamics of normal fibroglandular tissue (NFT) at MR mammography according to mammographic breast density. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six patients (mean age 51.54+/-11.5 years; range 37-79 years) who underwent both MR mammography and conventional mammography were included in this retrospective study. Fourteen patients were premenopausal and 12 were postmenopausal. The ethics committee of our institution approved the study. The mammograms were retrospectively reviewed for overall breast density according to the four-point scale (I-IV) of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classification. Two radiologists, who were unaware of the clinical data, separately assessed the MR mammography images. Images were assessed for enhancement kinetic features (enhancement kinetic curve and the early-phase enhancement rate) and BE. MR mammography and conventional mammography findings were compared according to BI-RADS breast density category and menopausal status. RESULTS: Percentage of increased signal intensity values during the first minute did not change according to mammographic breast density, and the mean early-phase enhancement rate scores were similar among breast density groups (p=0.942). There was no significant difference between pre- and postmenopausal groups. Enhancement kinetic features of the different groups based on BI-RADS breast density category and menopausal status were similar. There was no correlation between breast density and BE in either premenopausal (p=0.211) or in postmenopausal (p=0.735) groups. CONCLUSIONS: We determined no correlation between mammographic breast density and so-called BE in MR mammography in either premenopausal or postmenopausal women. NFT at MR mammography cannot be predicted on the basis of mammographic breast density.
PURPOSE: We aimed to analyse the influence of mammographic breast density on background enhancement (BE) at magnetic resonance (MR) mammography in pre- and postmenopausal women. In addition, we questioned predictability of contrast-enhancement dynamics of normal fibroglandular tissue (NFT) at MR mammography according to mammographic breast density. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six patients (mean age 51.54+/-11.5 years; range 37-79 years) who underwent both MR mammography and conventional mammography were included in this retrospective study. Fourteen patients were premenopausal and 12 were postmenopausal. The ethics committee of our institution approved the study. The mammograms were retrospectively reviewed for overall breast density according to the four-point scale (I-IV) of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classification. Two radiologists, who were unaware of the clinical data, separately assessed the MR mammography images. Images were assessed for enhancement kinetic features (enhancement kinetic curve and the early-phase enhancement rate) and BE. MR mammography and conventional mammography findings were compared according to BI-RADS breast density category and menopausal status. RESULTS: Percentage of increased signal intensity values during the first minute did not change according to mammographic breast density, and the mean early-phase enhancement rate scores were similar among breast density groups (p=0.942). There was no significant difference between pre- and postmenopausal groups. Enhancement kinetic features of the different groups based on BI-RADS breast density category and menopausal status were similar. There was no correlation between breast density and BE in either premenopausal (p=0.211) or in postmenopausal (p=0.735) groups. CONCLUSIONS: We determined no correlation between mammographic breast density and so-called BE in MR mammography in either premenopausal or postmenopausal women. NFT at MR mammography cannot be predicted on the basis of mammographic breast density.
Authors: Francesco Sardanelli; Gian M Giuseppetti; Pietro Panizza; Massimo Bazzocchi; Alfonso Fausto; Giovanni Simonetti; Vincenzo Lattanzio; Alessandro Del Maschio Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Andrea Teifke; Alexander Hlawatsch; Thomas Beier; Toni Werner Vomweg; Simin Schadmand; Markus Schmidt; Hans-Anton Lehr; Manfred Thelen Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: R D Rosenberg; W C Hunt; M R Williamson; F D Gilliland; P W Wiest; C A Kelsey; C R Key; M N Linver Journal: Radiology Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sheye O Aliu; Ella F Jones; Ania Azziz; John Kornak; Lisa J Wilmes; David C Newitt; Sachiko A Suzuki; Catherine Klifa; Jessica Gibbs; Evelyn C Proctor; Bonnie N Joe; Nola M Hylton Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: Julie Sogani; Elizabeth A Morris; Jennifer B Kaplan; Donna D'Alessio; Debra Goldman; Chaya S Moskowitz; Maxine S Jochelson Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-07-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: H Preibsch; L Wanner; S D Bahrs; B M Wietek; K C Siegmann-Luz; E Oberlecher; M Hahn; A Staebler; K Nikolaou; B Wiesinger Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-09-17 Impact factor: 5.315