Jin Sil Kim 1 , Sang Min Lee 2 , Eun Suk Cha 3 Show Affiliations »
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early detection of breast cancer reduces mortality. Therefore, diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is important. PURPOSE: To compare the sensitivities of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) and breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) in pathologically proven calcified and non-calcified DCIS. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty-five patients with pathologically diagnosed DCIS from 1 June 2009 through 31 December 2011, underwent a protocol involving both breast MRI and BSGI. Each image was assessed by a separate dedicated breast radiologist. All lesions were divided into two groups; with or without microcalcifications on mammograms. In cases without microcalcifications, we recorded the mass, asymmetry, or negative findings on mammography. On MRI, the enhancement pattern was categorized as mass or non-mass-like enhancement. On BSGI, the uptake pattern was analyzed. The histopathological features of the lesions were obtained. Statistical analysis of the sensitivity of each modality was performed using McNemar's test. RESULTS: Thirty-five women with a mean age of 48 years (range, 26-69 years) were enrolled in the study. The total sensitivities of MRI and BSGI in the 35 cases were 91.4% (32 of 35 DCIS) and 68.6% (24 of 35 DCIS), respectively. Eighteen cases with DCIS displayed microcalcifications on mammography, while 17 cases did not. Of these 17 cases without microcalcifications on mammography, 88.2% (15 of 17 DCIS) were detected by MRI and 52.9% (9 of 17 DCIS) by BSGI. Of 18 cases with microcalcifications on mammography, 94.4% (17 of 18 DCIS) were detected by MRI and 83.3% (15 of 19 DCIS) by BSGI. CONCLUSION: MRI showed a higher sensitivity for the detection of calcified and non-calcified DCIS and is more helpful than BSGI in cases without microcalcifications on mammography. © The Foundation Acta Radiologica 2013 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav.
BACKGROUND: Early detection of breast cancer reduces mortality. Therefore, diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is important. PURPOSE: To compare the sensitivities of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) and breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) in pathologically proven calcified and non-calcified DCIS. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty-five patients with pathologically diagnosed DCIS from 1 June 2009 through 31 December 2011, underwent a protocol involving both breast MRI and BSGI. Each image was assessed by a separate dedicated breast radiologist. All lesions were divided into two groups; with or without microcalcifications on mammograms. In cases without microcalcifications, we recorded the mass, asymmetry, or negative findings on mammography. On MRI, the enhancement pattern was categorized as mass or non-mass-like enhancement. On BSGI, the uptake pattern was analyzed. The histopathological features of the lesions were obtained. Statistical analysis of the sensitivity of each modality was performed using McNemar's test. RESULTS: Thirty-five women with a mean age of 48 years (range, 26-69 years) were enrolled in the study. The total sensitivities of MRI and BSGI in the 35 cases were 91.4% (32 of 35 DCIS) and 68.6% (24 of 35 DCIS), respectively. Eighteen cases with DCIS displayed microcalcifications on mammography, while 17 cases did not. Of these 17 cases without microcalcifications on mammography, 88.2% (15 of 17 DCIS) were detected by MRI and 52.9% (9 of 17 DCIS) by BSGI. Of 18 cases with microcalcifications on mammography, 94.4% (17 of 18 DCIS) were detected by MRI and 83.3% (15 of 19 DCIS) by BSGI. CONCLUSION: MRI showed a higher sensitivity for the detection of calcified and non-calcified DCIS and is more helpful than BSGI in cases without microcalcifications on mammography. © The Foundation Acta Radiologica 2013 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav.
Entities: Disease
Species
Keywords:
Ductal carcinoma in situ; breast specific gamma imaging; magnetic resonance imaging; mammography; microcalcification; sensitivity
Mesh： See more »
Substances： See more »
Year: 2013
PMID： 24043881 DOI： 10.1177/0284185113505086
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Radiol ISSN： 0284-1851 Impact factor: 1.990