Hye Mi Gweon1, Nariya Cho, Mirinae Seo, A Jung Chu, Woo Kyung Moon. 1. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine and Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehangno, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-744, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether kinetic features via magnetic resonance (MR)-computer-aided evaluation (CAE) can improve the positive predictive value (PPV) of morphological descriptors for suspicious lesions at screening breast MRI. METHODS: One hundred and sixteen consecutive, suspiciously enhancing lesions detected at contralateral breast MRI screening in 116 women with newly-diagnosed breast cancers were included. Morphological descriptors according to the revised BI-RADS Atlas and kinetic features from MR-CAE were analysed. The PPV of each descriptor was analysed to identify subgroups in which PPV could be improved by the addition of MR-CAE. RESULTS: When biopsy recommendations were downgraded to follow-up in cases where there were both the absence of enhancement at a 50% threshold and the absence of delayed washout, PPV increased from 0.328 (95% CI, 0.249-0.417) to 0.500 (95% CI, 0.387- 0.613). Two ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) non-mass enhancement (NME) lesions were missed. Application of downgrading criteria to foci or masses led to increased PPV from 0.310 (95% CI, 0.216-0.419) to 0.437 (95% CI, 0.331-0.547) without missing cancers. CONCLUSIONS: MR-CAE has the potential to improve the PPV of breast MR imaging by reducing the number of false positives. When suspicious mass lesions do not show enhancement at a 50% threshold nor delayed washout, follow-up rather than biopsy can be considered. KEY POINTS: • MR-CAE has the potential to increase PPV at breast MRI screening. • Lesions without enhancement at 50% threshold and washout might be downgraded. • DCIS non-mass lesions might be false-negative cases at MR-CAE.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether kinetic features via magnetic resonance (MR)-computer-aided evaluation (CAE) can improve the positive predictive value (PPV) of morphological descriptors for suspicious lesions at screening breast MRI. METHODS: One hundred and sixteen consecutive, suspiciously enhancing lesions detected at contralateral breast MRI screening in 116 women with newly-diagnosed breast cancers were included. Morphological descriptors according to the revised BI-RADS Atlas and kinetic features from MR-CAE were analysed. The PPV of each descriptor was analysed to identify subgroups in which PPV could be improved by the addition of MR-CAE. RESULTS: When biopsy recommendations were downgraded to follow-up in cases where there were both the absence of enhancement at a 50% threshold and the absence of delayed washout, PPV increased from 0.328 (95% CI, 0.249-0.417) to 0.500 (95% CI, 0.387- 0.613). Two ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) non-mass enhancement (NME) lesions were missed. Application of downgrading criteria to foci or masses led to increased PPV from 0.310 (95% CI, 0.216-0.419) to 0.437 (95% CI, 0.331-0.547) without missing cancers. CONCLUSIONS: MR-CAE has the potential to improve the PPV of breast MR imaging by reducing the number of false positives. When suspicious mass lesions do not show enhancement at a 50% threshold nor delayed washout, follow-up rather than biopsy can be considered. KEY POINTS: • MR-CAE has the potential to increase PPV at breast MRI screening. • Lesions without enhancement at 50% threshold and washout might be downgraded. • DCIS non-mass lesions might be false-negative cases at MR-CAE.
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
Authors: Heather I Greenwood; Samantha L Heller; Sungheon Kim; Eric E Sigmund; Sara D Shaylor; Linda Moy Journal: Radiographics Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Lilian C Wang; Wendy B DeMartini; Savannah C Partridge; Sue Peacock; Constance D Lehman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 3.959
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: Riham H Ei Khouli; Michael A Jacobs; Sarah D Mezban; Peng Huang; Ihab R Kamel; Katarzyna J Macura; David A Bluemke Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Constance D Lehman; Jeffrey D Blume; Wendy B DeMartini; Nola M Hylton; Benjamin Herman; Mitchell D Schnall Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Mieke Kriege; Cecile T M Brekelmans; Carla Boetes; Peter E Besnard; Harmine M Zonderland; Inge Marie Obdeijn; Radu A Manoliu; Theo Kok; Hans Peterse; Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst; Sara H Muller; Sybren Meijer; Jan C Oosterwijk; Louk V A M Beex; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Harry J de Koning; Emiel J T Rutgers; Jan G M Klijn Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-07-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jacob E D Levman; Cristina Gallego-Ortiz; Ellen Warner; Petrina Causer; Anne L Martel Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 4.056