PURPOSE: To compare the pathology and kinetic characteristics of breast lesions with focus-, mass-, and nonmass-like enhancement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 852 MRI detected breast lesions in 697 patients were selected for an IRB approved review. Patients underwent dynamic contrast enhanced MRI using one pre- and three to six postcontrast T(1)-weighted images. The "type" of enhancement was classified as mass, nonmass, or focus, and kinetic curves quantified by the initial enhancement percentage (E(1)), time to peak enhancement (T(peak)), and signal enhancement ratio (SER). These kinetic parameters were compared between malignant and benign lesions within each morphologic type. RESULTS: A total of 552 lesions were classified as mass (396 malignant, 156 benign), 261 as nonmass (212 malignant, 49 benign), and 39 as focus (9 malignant, 30 benign). The most common pathology of malignant/benign lesions by morphology: for mass, invasive ductal carcinoma/fibroadenoma; for nonmass, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)/fibrocystic change(FCC); for focus, DCIS/FCC. Benign mass lesions exhibited significantly lower E(1), longer T(peak), and lower SER compared with malignant mass lesions (P < 0.0001). Benign nonmass lesions exhibited only a lower SER compared with malignant nonmass lesions (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: By considering the diverse pathology and kinetic characteristics of different lesion morphologies, diagnostic accuracy may be improved.
PURPOSE: To compare the pathology and kinetic characteristics of breast lesions with focus-, mass-, and nonmass-like enhancement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 852 MRI detected breast lesions in 697 patients were selected for an IRB approved review. Patients underwent dynamic contrast enhanced MRI using one pre- and three to six postcontrast T(1)-weighted images. The "type" of enhancement was classified as mass, nonmass, or focus, and kinetic curves quantified by the initial enhancement percentage (E(1)), time to peak enhancement (T(peak)), and signal enhancement ratio (SER). These kinetic parameters were compared between malignant and benign lesions within each morphologic type. RESULTS: A total of 552 lesions were classified as mass (396 malignant, 156 benign), 261 as nonmass (212 malignant, 49 benign), and 39 as focus (9 malignant, 30 benign). The most common pathology of malignant/benign lesions by morphology: for mass, invasive ductal carcinoma/fibroadenoma; for nonmass, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)/fibrocystic change(FCC); for focus, DCIS/FCC. Benign mass lesions exhibited significantly lower E(1), longer T(peak), and lower SER compared with malignant mass lesions (P < 0.0001). Benign nonmass lesions exhibited only a lower SER compared with malignant nonmass lesions (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: By considering the diverse pathology and kinetic characteristics of different lesion morphologies, diagnostic accuracy may be improved.
Authors: Pascal A T Baltzer; Matthias Benndorf; Matthias Dietzel; Mieczyslaw Gajda; Ingo B Runnebaum; Werner A Kaiser Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Eric L Rosen; Stacy A Smith-Foley; Wendy B DeMartini; Peter R Eby; Sue Peacock; Constance D Lehman Journal: Breast J Date: 2007 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Maria Adele Marino; Paola Clauser; Ramona Woitek; Georg J Wengert; Panagiotis Kapetas; Maria Bernathova; Katja Pinker-Domenig; Thomas H Helbich; Klaus Preidler; Pascal A T Baltzer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-10-29 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Alana R Amarosa; Jason McKellop; Ana Paula Klautau Leite; Melanie Moccaldi; Tess V Clendenen; James S Babb; Anne Zeleniuch-Jacquotte; Linda Moy; Sungheon Kim Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-05-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Natsuko Onishi; Meredith Sadinski; Peter Gibbs; Katherine M Gallagher; Mary C Hughes; Eun Sook Ko; Brittany Z Dashevsky; Dattesh D Shanbhag; Maggie M Fung; Theodore M Hunt; Danny F Martinez; Amita Shukla-Dave; Elizabeth A Morris; Elizabeth J Sutton Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-08-29 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Derek L Nguyen; Kelly S Myers; Eniola Oluyemi; Lisa A Mullen; Babita Panigrahi; Joanna Rossi; Emily B Ambinder Journal: J Breast Imaging Date: 2022-06-28
Authors: Hui Li; Heather M Whitney; Yu Ji; Alexandra Edwards; John Papaioannou; Peifang Liu; Maryellen L Giger Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2022-06-06
Authors: Shu Tian Chen; James Covelli; Satoko Okamoto; Bruce L Daniel; Wendy B DeMartini; Debra M Ikeda Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2020-12-17 Impact factor: 3.039