OBJECTIVE: To compare the detectability of non-palpable breast cancer in asymptomatic women by using mammography (MMG), dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging (DCE-MRI) and unenhanced MR imaging with combined diffusion-weighted and T2-weighted images (DWI+T2WI). METHODS: Forty-two lesions in 42 patients with non-palpable breast cancer in asymptomatic women were enrolled. For the reading test, we prepared a control including 13 normal and 8 benign cases. Each imaging set included biplane MMG, DCE-MRI and DWI+T2WI. Five readers were asked to rate the images on a scale of 0 to 100 for the likelihood of the presence of cancer and the BI-RADS category. Confidence level results were used to construct receiver operating characteristic analysis. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each technique. RESULTS: DWI+T2WI showed higher observer performances (area under the curve, AUC, 0.73) and sensitivity (50%) for the detection of non-palpable breast cancer than MMG alone (AUC 0.64; sensitivity 40%) but lower than those of DCE-MRI (AUC 0.93; sensitivity 86%). A combination of MMG and DWI+T2WI exhibited higher sensitivity (69%) compared with that of MMG alone (40%). CONCLUSION: DWI+T2WI could be useful in screening breast cancer for patients who cannot receive contrast medium and could be used as a new screening technique for breast cancer.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the detectability of non-palpable breast cancer in asymptomatic women by using mammography (MMG), dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging (DCE-MRI) and unenhanced MR imaging with combined diffusion-weighted and T2-weighted images (DWI+T2WI). METHODS: Forty-two lesions in 42 patients with non-palpable breast cancer in asymptomatic women were enrolled. For the reading test, we prepared a control including 13 normal and 8 benign cases. Each imaging set included biplane MMG, DCE-MRI and DWI+T2WI. Five readers were asked to rate the images on a scale of 0 to 100 for the likelihood of the presence of cancer and the BI-RADS category. Confidence level results were used to construct receiver operating characteristic analysis. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each technique. RESULTS: DWI+T2WI showed higher observer performances (area under the curve, AUC, 0.73) and sensitivity (50%) for the detection of non-palpable breast cancer than MMG alone (AUC 0.64; sensitivity 40%) but lower than those of DCE-MRI (AUC 0.93; sensitivity 86%). A combination of MMG and DWI+T2WI exhibited higher sensitivity (69%) compared with that of MMG alone (40%). CONCLUSION: DWI+T2WI could be useful in screening breast cancer for patients who cannot receive contrast medium and could be used as a new screening technique for breast cancer.
Authors: F Podo; F Sardanelli; R Canese; G D'Agnolo; P G Natali; M Crecco; M L Grandinetti; R Musumeci; G Trecate; S Bergonzi; T De Simone; C Costa; B Pasini; S Manuokian; G B Spatti; D Vergnaghi; S Morassut; M Boiocchi; R Dolcetti; A Viel; C De Giacomi; A Veronesi; F Coran; V Silingardi; D Turchett; L Cortesi; M De Santis; M Federico; R Romagnoli; S Ferrari; G Bevilacqua; C Bartolozzi; M A Caligo; A Cilotti; C Marini; S Cirillo; V Marra; L Martincich; A Contegiacomo; M Pensabene; I Capuano; G B Burgazzi; A Petrillo; L Bonomo; A Carriero; R Mariani-Costantini; P Battista; A Cama; G Palca; C Di Maggio; E D'Andrea; M Bazzocchi; G E Francescutti; C Zuiani; V Londero; I Zunnui; C Gustavino; M G Centurioni; A Iozzelli; P Panizza; A Del Maschio Journal: J Exp Clin Cancer Res Date: 2002-09
Authors: Elizabeth A Morris; Laura Liberman; Douglas J Ballon; Mark Robson; Andrea F Abramson; Alexandra Heerdt; D David Dershaw Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Mieke Kriege; Cecile T M Brekelmans; Carla Boetes; Peter E Besnard; Harmine M Zonderland; Inge Marie Obdeijn; Radu A Manoliu; Theo Kok; Hans Peterse; Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst; Sara H Muller; Sybren Meijer; Jan C Oosterwijk; Louk V A M Beex; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Harry J de Koning; Emiel J T Rutgers; Jan G M Klijn Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-07-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Constance D Lehman; Constantine Gatsonis; Christiane K Kuhl; R Edward Hendrick; Etta D Pisano; Lucy Hanna; Sue Peacock; Stanley F Smazal; Daniel D Maki; Thomas B Julian; Elizabeth R DePeri; David A Bluemke; Mitchell D Schnall Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-03-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ellen Warner; Donald B Plewes; Kimberley A Hill; Petrina A Causer; Judit T Zubovits; Roberta A Jong; Margaret R Cutrara; Gerrit DeBoer; Martin J Yaffe; Sandra J Messner; Wendy S Meschino; Cameron A Piron; Steven A Narod Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-09-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Katja Pinker; Linda Moy; Elizabeth J Sutton; Ritse M Mann; Michael Weber; Sunitha B Thakur; Maxine S Jochelson; Zsuzsanna Bago-Horvath; Elizabeth A Morris; Pascal At Baltzer; Thomas H Helbich Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 6.016