Literature DB >> 24620911

The effects of applying breast compression in dynamic contrast material-enhanced MR imaging.

Riham H El Khouli1, Katarzyna J Macura, Ihab R Kamel, David A Bluemke, Michael A Jacobs.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of breast compression on breast cancer masses, contrast material enhancement of glandular tissue, and quality of magnetic resonance (MR) images in the identification and characterization of breast lesions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board-approved retrospective study, with waiver of informed consent. Images from 300 MR imaging examinations in 149 women (mean age ± standard deviation, 51.5 years ± 10.9; age range, 22-76 years) were evaluated. The women underwent diagnostic MR imaging (no compression) and MR-guided biopsy (with compression) between June 2008 and February 2013. Breast compression was expressed as a percentage relative to the noncompressed breast. Percentage enhancement difference was calculated between noncompressed- and compressed-breast images obtained in early and delayed contrast-enhanced phases. Breast density, lesion type (mass vs non-masslike enhancement [NMLE]), lesion size, percentage compression, and kinetic curve type were evaluated. Linear regression, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, and κ test were performed.
RESULTS: Mean percentage compression was 31.3% ± 9.2 (range, 5.8%-53.2%). Percentage enhancement was higher in noncompressed- versus compressed-breast studies in early (146% ± 66 vs 107% ± 42, respectively; P < .001) and delayed (158% ± 68 vs 107% ± 42, respectively; P = .1) phases. Among breast lesions, 12% (seven of 59) were significantly smaller when compressed, which led to underestimation of TNM classification (P < .001). Breast masses (n = 35) showed significantly higher early percentage enhancement (157% ± 71) than lesions with NMLE (n = 15, 120% ± 40; P = .02) and a percentage enhancement difference (47.5% ± 64 vs 17% ± 28, respectively; P = .023). Kinetic curve performance for identifying invasive cancer decreased after compression (area under ROC curve = 0.53 vs 0.71, respectively; P = .02). Breast compression resulted in complete loss of enhancement of nine of 210 lesions (4%).
CONCLUSION: Breast compression during biopsy affected breast lesion detection, lesion size, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging interpretation and performance. Limiting the application of breast compression is recommended, except when clinically necessary. © RSNA, 2014.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24620911      PMCID: PMC4263656          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.14131384

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


  40 in total

1.  A combined architectural and kinetic interpretation model for breast MR images.

Authors:  M D Schnall; S Rosten; S Englander; S G Orel; L W Nunes
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 2.  Tumor angiogenesis, vascularization, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Z M Bhujwalla; D Artemov; J Glockner
Journal:  Top Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  1999-04

Review 3.  Angiogenesis, thrombospondin, and ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.

Authors:  A Rice; C M Quinn
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 3.411

4.  Differentiation of benign and malignant sub-1 cm breast lesions using dynamic contrast enhanced MRI.

Authors:  P Gibbs; G P Liney; M Lowry; P J Kneeshaw; L W Turnbull
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 4.380

Review 5.  Mechanisms of angiogenesis and their use in the inhibition of tumor growth and metastasis.

Authors:  A Saaristo; T Karpanen; K Alitalo
Journal:  Oncogene       Date:  2000-12-11       Impact factor: 9.867

6.  3-T dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast: pharmacokinetic parameters versus conventional kinetic curve analysis.

Authors:  Riham H El Khouli; Katarzyna J Macura; Ihab R Kamel; Michael A Jacobs; David A Bluemke
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Detection of breast malignancy: diagnostic MR protocol for improved specificity.

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

Review 8.  Staging system for breast cancer: revisions for the 6th edition of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual.

Authors:  S Eva Singletary; Craig Allred; Pandora Ashley; Lawrence W Bassett; Donald Berry; Kirby I Bland; Patrick I Borgen; Gary M Clark; Stephen B Edge; Daniel F Hayes; Lorie L Hughes; Robert V P Hutter; Monica Morrow; David L Page; Abram Recht; Richard L Theriault; Ann Thor; Donald L Weaver; H Samuel Wieand; Frederick L Greene
Journal:  Surg Clin North Am       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 2.741

9.  Changes in the 2003 American Joint Committee on Cancer staging for breast cancer dramatically affect stage-specific survival.

Authors:  Wendy A Woodward; Eric A Strom; Susan L Tucker; Marsha D McNeese; George H Perkins; Naomi R Schechter; S Eva Singletary; Richard L Theriault; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Kelly K Hunt; Thomas A Buchholz
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-09-01       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Measuring response in solid tumors: comparison of RECIST and WHO response criteria.

Authors:  Joon Oh Park; Soon Il Lee; Seo Young Song; Kihyun Kim; Won Seog Kim; Chul Won Jung; Young Suk Park; Young-Hyuk Im; Won Ki Kang; Mark Hong Lee; Kyung Soo Lee; Keunchil Park
Journal:  Jpn J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 3.019

View more
  7 in total

1.  Focal brachial enhancement deficit: a normal anatomic variant?

Authors:  Nicholas Beckmann; Benjamin Saverino; Chunyan Cai
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2016-07-28       Impact factor: 2.199

2.  Comparison of conventional DCE-MRI and a novel golden-angle radial multicoil compressed sensing method for the evaluation of breast lesion conspicuity.

Authors:  Laura Heacock; Yiming Gao; Samantha L Heller; Amy N Melsaether; James S Babb; Tobias K Block; Ricardo Otazo; Sungheon G Kim; Linda Moy
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2016-11-17       Impact factor: 4.813

3.  Quantification of breast stiffness using MR elastography at 3 Tesla with a soft sternal driver: A reproducibility study.

Authors:  Jeffrey R Hawley; Prateek Kalra; Xiaokui Mo; Brian Raterman; Lisa D Yee; Arunark Kolipaka
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2016-10-25       Impact factor: 4.813

4.  Separation of benign and malignant breast lesions using dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in a biopsy cohort.

Authors:  Sungheon Gene Kim; Melanie Freed; Ana Paula Klautau Leite; Jin Zhang; Claudia Seuss; Linda Moy
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2016-10-20       Impact factor: 4.813

5.  Relating Doses of Contrast Agent Administered to TIC and Semi-Quantitative Parameters on DCE-MRI: Based on a Murine Breast Tumor Model.

Authors:  Menglin Wu; Li Lu; Qi Zhang; Qi Guo; Feixiang Zhao; Tongwei Li; Xuening Zhang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-02-22       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Lipid-weighted intraoperative photoacoustic tomography of breast tumors: Volumetric comparison to preoperative MRI.

Authors:  Ivan Kosik; Muriel Brackstone; Anat Kornecki; Astrid Chamson-Reig; Philip Wong; Jeffrey J L Carson
Journal:  Photoacoustics       Date:  2020-04-24

7.  Correcting time-intensity curves in dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI for inhomogeneous excitation fields at 7T.

Authors:  Michael J van Rijssel; Josien P W Pluim; Hui-Shan M Chan; Lieke van den Wildenberg; Alexander M Th Schmitz; Peter R Luijten; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs; Dennis W J Klomp
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2019-12-27       Impact factor: 4.668

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.