Literature DB >> 22589320

Positive predictive value of BI-RADS MR imaging.

Mary C Mahoney1, Constantine Gatsonis, Lucy Hanna, Wendy B DeMartini, Constance Lehman.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the positive predictive values (PPVs) of Breast Imaging and Reporting Data Systems (BI-RADS) assessment categories for breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and to identify the BI-RADS MR imaging lesion features most predictive of cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant prospective multicenter study was performed with written informed consent. Breast MR imaging studies of the contralateral breast in women with a recent diagnosis of breast cancer were prospectively evaluated. Contralateral breast MR imaging BI-RADS assessment categories, morphologic descriptors for foci, masses, non-masslike enhancement (NMLE), and kinetic features were assessed for predictive values for malignancy. PPV of each imaging characteristic of interest was estimated, and logistic regression analysis was used to examine the predictive ability of combinations of characteristics.
RESULTS: Of 969 participants, 71.3% had a BI-RADS category 1 or 2 assessment; 10.9%, a BI-RADS category 3 assessment; 10.0%, a BI-RADS category 4 or 5 assessment; and 7.7%, a BI-RADS category 0 assessment on the basis of initial MR images. Thirty-one cancers were detected with MR imaging. Overall PPV for BI-RADS category 4 and 5 lesions was 0.278, with 17 cancers in patients with a BI-RADS category 4 lesion (PPV, 0.205) and 10 cancers in patients with a BI-RADS category 5 lesion (PPV, 0.714). Of the cancers, one was a focus, 17 were masses, and 13 were NMLEs. For masses, irregular shape, irregular margins, spiculated margins, and marked internal enhancement were most predictive of malignancy. For NMLEs, ductal, clumped, and reticular or dendritic enhancement were the features most frequently seen with malignancy. Kinetic enhancement features were less predictive of malignancy than were morphologic features.
CONCLUSION: Standardized terminology of the BI-RADS lexicon enables quantification of the likelihood of malignancy for MR imaging-detected lesions through careful evaluation of lesion features. In particular, BI-RADS assessment categories and morphologic descriptors for masses and NMLE were useful in estimating the probability of cancer. © RSNA, 2012.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22589320      PMCID: PMC3380411          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12110619

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  20 in total

1.  Dynamic high-spatial-resolution MR imaging of suspicious breast lesions: diagnostic criteria and interobserver variability.

Authors:  K Kinkel; T H Helbich; L J Esserman; J Barclay; E H Schwerin; E A Sickles; N M Hylton
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions?

Authors:  C K Kuhl; P Mielcareck; S Klaschik; C Leutner; E Wardelmann; J Gieseke; H H Schild
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Breast cancer screening with MRI--what are the data for patients at high risk?

Authors:  Laura Liberman
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-07-29       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  False-positive findings at contrast-enhanced breast MRI: a BI-RADS descriptor study.

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

5.  MR imaging of the breast with rotating delivery of excitation off resonance: clinical experience with pathologic correlation.

Authors:  S E Harms; D P Flamig; K L Hesley; M D Meiches; R A Jensen; W P Evans; D A Savino; R V Wells
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Suspicious breast lesions: MR imaging with radiologic-pathologic correlation.

Authors:  S G Orel; M D Schnall; V A LiVolsi; R H Troupin
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Breast MR imaging: interpretation model.

Authors:  L W Nunes; M D Schnall; S G Orel; M G Hochman; C P Langlotz; C A Reynolds; M H Torosian
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Breast lesions detected on MR imaging: features and positive predictive value.

Authors:  Laura Liberman; Elizabeth A Morris; Melissa Joo-Young Lee; Jennifer B Kaplan; Linda R LaTrenta; Jennifer H Menell; Andrea F Abramson; Stephen M Dashnaw; Douglas J Ballon; D David Dershaw
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories.

Authors:  L Liberman; A F Abramson; F B Squires; J R Glassman; E A Morris; D D Dershaw
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  MR imaging of the breast with Gd-DTPA: use and limitations.

Authors:  S H Heywang; A Wolf; E Pruss; T Hilbertz; W Eiermann; W Permanetter
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1989-04       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  50 in total

1.  Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI-based biomarkers of therapeutic response in triple-negative breast cancer.

Authors:  Daniel I Golden; Jafi A Lipson; Melinda L Telli; James M Ford; Daniel L Rubin
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2013-06-19       Impact factor: 4.497

2.  Heterogeneous Enhancement Patterns of Tumor-adjacent Parenchyma at MR Imaging Are Associated with Dysregulated Signaling Pathways and Poor Survival in Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Jia Wu; Bailiang Li; Xiaoli Sun; Guohong Cao; Daniel L Rubin; Sandy Napel; Debra M Ikeda; Allison W Kurian; Ruijiang Li
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-07-14       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Breast cancer: a new imaging approach as an addition to existing guidelines.

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

4.  The MRI characteristics of non-mass enhancement lesions of the breast: associations with malignancy.

Authors:  Hale Aydin
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-01-29       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Breast MRI BI-RADS assessments and abnormal interpretation rates by clinical indication in US community practices.

Authors:  Christoph I Lee; Laura Ichikawa; Michele C Rochelle; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti; Brian L Sprague; Wendy B DeMartini; Karen J Wernli; Bonnie N Joe; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2014-08-07       Impact factor: 3.173

6.  Using multidimensional mutual information to prioritize mammographic features for breast cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  Y Wu; D J Vanness; E S Burnside
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2013-11-16

7.  Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6667 trial: effect of breast MR imaging assessments and patient characteristics.

Authors:  Habib Rahbar; Lucy G Hanna; Constantine Gatsonis; Mary C Mahoney; Mitchell D Schnall; Wendy B DeMartini; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-06-16       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Diffusion-Weighted Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Semiautomated Voxel Selection Technique Improves Interreader Reproducibility of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Measurements.

Authors:  Habib Rahbar; Brenda F Kurland; Matthew L Olson; Averi E Kitsch; John R Scheel; Xiaoyu Chai; Joshua Usoro; Constance D Lehman; Savannah C Partridge
Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr       Date:  2016 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.826

9.  Breast DCE-MRI: influence of postcontrast timing on automated lesion kinetics assessments and discrimination of benign and malignant lesions.

Authors:  Savannah C Partridge; Karen M Stone; Roberta M Strigel; Wendy B DeMartini; Sue Peacock; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2014-07-04       Impact factor: 3.173

10.  Temporal subtraction contrast-enhanced dedicated breast CT.

Authors:  Peymon M Gazi; Shadi Aminololama-Shakeri; Kai Yang; John M Boone
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2016-08-05       Impact factor: 3.609

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.