OBJECTIVE: To determine whether quantitative multivoxel MRS improves the accuracy of MRI in the assessment of breast lesions. METHODS: Twenty-five consecutive patients with 26 breast lesions ≥ 1 cm assessed as BI-RADS 3 or 4 with mammography underwent quantitative multivoxel MRS and contrast-enhanced MRI. The choline (Cho) concentration was calculated using the unsuppressed water signal as a concentration reference. ROC analysis established the diagnostic accuracy of MRI and MRS in the assessment of breast lesions. RESULTS: Respective Cho concentrations in 26 breast lesions re-classified by MRI as BI-RADS 2 (n = 5), 3 (n = 8), 4 (n = 5) and 5 (n = 8) were 1.16 ± 0.43 (mean ± SD), 1.43 ± 0.47, 2.98 ± 2.15 and 4.94 ± 3.10 mM. Two BI-RADS 3 lesions and all BI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions were malignant on histopathology and had Cho concentrations between 1.7 and 11.8 mM (4.03 ± 2.72 SD), which were significantly higher (P = 0.01) than that in the 11 benign lesions (0.4-1.5 mM; 1.19 ± 0.33 SD). Furthermore, Cho concentrations in the benign and malignant breast lesions in BI-RADS 3 category differed (P = 0.01). The accuracy of combined multivoxel MRS/breast MRI BI-RADS re-classification (AUC = 1.00) exceeded that of MRI alone (AUC = 0.96 ± 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary data indicate that multivoxel MRS improves the accuracy of MRI when using a Cho concentration cut-off ≤ 1.5 mM for benign lesions. KEY POINTS: Quantitative multivoxel MR spectroscopy can improve the accuracy of contrast-enhanced breast MRI. Multivoxel-MRS can differentiate breast lesions by using the highest Cho-concentration. Multivoxel-MRS can exclude patients with benign breast lesions from further invasive diagnostic procedures.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether quantitative multivoxel MRS improves the accuracy of MRI in the assessment of breast lesions. METHODS: Twenty-five consecutive patients with 26 breast lesions ≥ 1 cm assessed as BI-RADS 3 or 4 with mammography underwent quantitative multivoxel MRS and contrast-enhanced MRI. The choline (Cho) concentration was calculated using the unsuppressed water signal as a concentration reference. ROC analysis established the diagnostic accuracy of MRI and MRS in the assessment of breast lesions. RESULTS: Respective Cho concentrations in 26 breast lesions re-classified by MRI as BI-RADS 2 (n = 5), 3 (n = 8), 4 (n = 5) and 5 (n = 8) were 1.16 ± 0.43 (mean ± SD), 1.43 ± 0.47, 2.98 ± 2.15 and 4.94 ± 3.10 mM. Two BI-RADS 3 lesions and all BI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions were malignant on histopathology and had Cho concentrations between 1.7 and 11.8 mM (4.03 ± 2.72 SD), which were significantly higher (P = 0.01) than that in the 11 benign lesions (0.4-1.5 mM; 1.19 ± 0.33 SD). Furthermore, Cho concentrations in the benign and malignant breast lesions in BI-RADS 3 category differed (P = 0.01). The accuracy of combined multivoxel MRS/breast MRI BI-RADS re-classification (AUC = 1.00) exceeded that of MRI alone (AUC = 0.96 ± 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary data indicate that multivoxel MRS improves the accuracy of MRI when using a Cho concentration cut-off ≤ 1.5 mM for benign lesions. KEY POINTS: Quantitative multivoxel MR spectroscopy can improve the accuracy of contrast-enhanced breast MRI. Multivoxel-MRS can differentiate breast lesions by using the highest Cho-concentration. Multivoxel-MRS can exclude patients with benign breast lesions from further invasive diagnostic procedures.
Authors: Gary M K Tse; Humairah S Cheung; Lai-Man Pang; Winnie C W Chu; Bonita K B Law; Fred Y L Kung; David K W Yeung Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Wei Huang; Paul R Fisher; Khaldoon Dulaimy; Luminita A Tudorica; Brian O'Hea; Terry M Button Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-06-17 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Laura Liberman; Elizabeth A Morris; Catherine L Benton; Andrea F Abramson; D David Dershaw Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-07-15 Impact factor: 6.860
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: Michael A Jacobs; Peter B Barker; Paul A Bottomley; Zaver Bhujwalla; David A Bluemke Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Patrick J Bolan; Sina Meisamy; Eva H Baker; Joseph Lin; Timothy Emory; Michael Nelson; Lenore I Everson; Douglas Yee; Michael Garwood Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Monique D Dorrius; Erik F J de Vries; Riemer H J A Slart; Andor W J M Glaudemans Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-03-12 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Lenka Minarikova; Stephan Gruber; Wolfgang Bogner; Katja Pinker-Domenig; Pascal A T Baltzer; Thomas H Helbich; Siegfried Trattnig; Marek Chmelik Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-09-14 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Alexandra Ntorkou; Athina C Tsili; Loukas Astrakas; Anna Goussia; Eleni Panopoulou; Nikolaos Sofikitis; Maria I Argyropoulou Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-03-30 Impact factor: 5.315