PURPOSE: To evaluate feasibility of using magnetization transfer ratio (MTR) in conjunction with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) for differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions at 3 Tesla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective study was IRB and HIPAA compliant. DCE-MRI scans followed by MT imaging were performed on 41 patients. Regions of interest (ROIs) were drawn on co-registered MTR and DCE postcontrast images for breast structures, including benign lesions (BL) and malignant lesions (ML). Initial enhancement ratio (IER) and delayed enhancement ratio (DER) were calculated, as were normalized MTR, DER, and IER (NMTR, NDER, NIER) values. Diagnostic accuracy analysis was performed. RESULTS: Mean MTR in ML was lower than in BL (P < 0.05); mean DER and mean IER in ML were significantly higher than in BL (P < 0.01, P < 0.001). NMTR, NDER, and NIER were significantly lower in ML versus BL (P < 0.007, P < 0.001, P < 0.001). IER had highest diagnostic accuracy (77.6%), sensitivity (86.2%), and area under the ROC curve (.879). MTR specificity was 100%. Logistic regression modeling with NMTR and NIER yielded best results for BL versus ML (sensitivity 93.1%, specificity 80%, AUC 0.884, accuracy 83.7%). CONCLUSION: Isolated quantitative DCE analysis may increase specificity of breast MR for differentiating BL and ML. DCE-MRI with NMTR may produce a robust means of evaluating breast lesions.
PURPOSE: To evaluate feasibility of using magnetization transfer ratio (MTR) in conjunction with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) for differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions at 3 Tesla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective study was IRB and HIPAA compliant. DCE-MRI scans followed by MT imaging were performed on 41 patients. Regions of interest (ROIs) were drawn on co-registered MTR and DCE postcontrast images for breast structures, including benign lesions (BL) and malignant lesions (ML). Initial enhancement ratio (IER) and delayed enhancement ratio (DER) were calculated, as were normalized MTR, DER, and IER (NMTR, NDER, NIER) values. Diagnostic accuracy analysis was performed. RESULTS: Mean MTR in ML was lower than in BL (P < 0.05); mean DER and mean IER in ML were significantly higher than in BL (P < 0.01, P < 0.001). NMTR, NDER, and NIER were significantly lower in ML versus BL (P < 0.007, P < 0.001, P < 0.001). IER had highest diagnostic accuracy (77.6%), sensitivity (86.2%), and area under the ROC curve (.879). MTR specificity was 100%. Logistic regression modeling with NMTR and NIER yielded best results for BL versus ML (sensitivity 93.1%, specificity 80%, AUC 0.884, accuracy 83.7%). CONCLUSION: Isolated quantitative DCE analysis may increase specificity of breast MR for differentiating BL and ML. DCE-MRI with NMTR may produce a robust means of evaluating breast lesions.
Authors: Teresa C Williams; Wendy B DeMartini; Savannah C Partridge; Sue Peacock; Constance D Lehman Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-05-16 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: David Bonekamp; Michael A Jacobs; Riham El-Khouli; Dan Stoianovici; Katarzyna J Macura Journal: Radiographics Date: 2011 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Wei Huang; Luminita A Tudorica; Xin Li; Sunitha B Thakur; Yiyi Chen; Elizabeth A Morris; Ian J Tagge; Maayan E Korenblit; William D Rooney; Jason A Koutcher; Charles S Springer Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-08-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Carol H Lee; D David Dershaw; Daniel Kopans; Phil Evans; Barbara Monsees; Debra Monticciolo; R James Brenner; Lawrence Bassett; Wendie Berg; Stephen Feig; Edward Hendrick; Ellen Mendelson; Carl D'Orsi; Edward Sickles; Linda Warren Burhenne Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Riham H El Khouli; Katarzyna J Macura; Michael A Jacobs; Tarek H Khalil; Ihab R Kamel; Andrew Dwyer; David A Bluemke Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Sungheon Kim; Harry Quon; Laurie A Loevner; Mark A Rosen; Lawrence Dougherty; Alex M Kilger; Jerry D Glickson; Harish Poptani Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Laura Heacock; Alana A Lewin; Yiming Gao; James S Babb; Samantha L Heller; Amy N Melsaether; Neeti Bagadiya; Sungheon G Kim; Linda Moy Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-11-27 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Lori R Arlinghaus; Richard D Dortch; Jennifer G Whisenant; Hakmook Kang; Richard G Abramson; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: Tomography Date: 2016-12
Authors: John Virostko; Anna G Sorace; Chengyue Wu; David Ekrut; Angela M Jarrett; Raghave M Upadhyaya; Sarah Avery; Debra Patt; Boone Goodgame; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: Tomography Date: 2019-03
Authors: Surrin S Deen; Mary A McLean; Andrew B Gill; Robin A F Crawford; John Latimer; Peter Baldwin; Helena M Earl; Christine A Parkinson; Sarah Smith; Charlotte Hodgkin; Mercedes Jimenez-Linan; Cara R Brodie; Ilse Patterson; Helen C Addley; Susan J Freeman; Penelope M Moyle; Martin J Graves; Evis Sala; James D Brenton; Ferdia A Gallagher Journal: BJR Open Date: 2022-05-02