OBJECTIVE: To develop and assess a combined reading for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance (CE-MRI) and diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) adapted to the BI-RADS for multiparametric MRI of the breast at 3 T. METHODS: A total of 247 patients with histopathologically verified breast lesions were included in this IRB-approved prospective study. All patients underwent CE-MR and DWI at 3 T. MRIs were classified according to BI-RADS and assessed for apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values. A reading method that adapted ADC thresholds to the assigned BI-RADS classification was developed. Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy and the area under the curve were calculated. BI-RADS-adapted reading was compared with previously published reading methods in the same population. Inter- and intra-reader variability was assessed. RESULTS: Sensitivity of BI-RADS-adapted reading was not different from the high sensitivity of CE-MRI (P = 0.4). BI-RADS-adapted reading maximised specificity (89.4 %), which was significantly higher compared with CE-MRI (P < 0.001). Previous reading methods did not perform as well as the BI-RADS method except for a logistic regression model. BI-RADS-adapted reading was more sensitive in non-mass-like enhancements (NMLE) and was more robust to inter- and intra-reader variability. CONCLUSION: Multiparametric 3-T MRI of the breast using a BI-RADS-adapted reading is fast, simple to use and significantly improves the diagnostic accuracy of breast MRI. KEYPOINTS : • Multiparametric breast 3-T MRI with BI-RADS-adapted reading improves diagnostic accuracy. • BI-RADS-adapted reading of CE-MRI and DWI is based on established reporting guidelines. • BI-RADS-adapted reading is fast and easy to use in routine clinical practice. • BI-RADS-adapted reading is robust to intra- and inter-reader variability.
OBJECTIVE: To develop and assess a combined reading for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance (CE-MRI) and diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) adapted to the BI-RADS for multiparametric MRI of the breast at 3 T. METHODS: A total of 247 patients with histopathologically verified breast lesions were included in this IRB-approved prospective study. All patients underwent CE-MR and DWI at 3 T. MRIs were classified according to BI-RADS and assessed for apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values. A reading method that adapted ADC thresholds to the assigned BI-RADS classification was developed. Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy and the area under the curve were calculated. BI-RADS-adapted reading was compared with previously published reading methods in the same population. Inter- and intra-reader variability was assessed. RESULTS: Sensitivity of BI-RADS-adapted reading was not different from the high sensitivity of CE-MRI (P = 0.4). BI-RADS-adapted reading maximised specificity (89.4 %), which was significantly higher compared with CE-MRI (P < 0.001). Previous reading methods did not perform as well as the BI-RADS method except for a logistic regression model. BI-RADS-adapted reading was more sensitive in non-mass-like enhancements (NMLE) and was more robust to inter- and intra-reader variability. CONCLUSION: Multiparametric 3-T MRI of the breast using a BI-RADS-adapted reading is fast, simple to use and significantly improves the diagnostic accuracy of breast MRI. KEYPOINTS : • Multiparametric breast 3-T MRI with BI-RADS-adapted reading improves diagnostic accuracy. • BI-RADS-adapted reading of CE-MRI and DWI is based on established reporting guidelines. • BI-RADS-adapted reading is fast and easy to use in routine clinical practice. • BI-RADS-adapted reading is robust to intra- and inter-reader variability.
Authors: Wolfgang Bogner; Stephan Gruber; Katja Pinker; Günther Grabner; Andreas Stadlbauer; Michael Weber; Ewald Moser; Thomas H Helbich; Siegfried Trattnig Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-07-31 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Savannah C Partridge; Wendy B DeMartini; Brenda F Kurland; Peter R Eby; Steven W White; Constance D Lehman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Wolfgang Bogner; Katja Pinker-Domenig; Hubert Bickel; Marek Chmelik; Michael Weber; Thomas H Helbich; Siegfried Trattnig; Stephan Gruber Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: K Pinker-Domenig; W Bogner; S Gruber; H Bickel; S Duffy; M Schernthaner; P Dubsky; U Pluschnig; M Rudas; S Trattnig; T H Helbich Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-09-14 Impact factor: 5.315
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: S Gruber; L Minarikova; K Pinker; O Zaric; M Chmelik; B Strasser; P Baltzer; T Helbich; S Trattnig; W Bogner Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-08-27 Impact factor: 5.315
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
Authors: P Mürtz; M Tsesarskiy; A Kowal; F Träber; J Gieseke; W A Willinek; C C Leutner; A Schmiedel; H H Schild Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-06-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Hubert Bickel; Katja Pinker; Stephan Polanec; Heinrich Magometschnigg; Georg Wengert; Claudio Spick; Wolfgang Bogner; Zsuzsanna Bago-Horvath; Thomas H Helbich; Pascal Baltzer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Habib Rahbar; Zheng Zhang; Thomas L Chenevert; Justin Romanoff; Averi E Kitsch; Lucy G Hanna; Sara M Harvey; Linda Moy; Wendy B DeMartini; Basak Dogan; Wei T Yang; Lilian C Wang; Bonnie N Joe; Karen Y Oh; Colleen H Neal; Elizabeth S McDonald; Mitchell D Schnall; Constance D Lehman; Christopher E Comstock; Savannah C Partridge Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-01-15 Impact factor: 12.531