Claudio Spick1, Dieter H M Szolar2, Klaus W Preidler2, Manfred Tillich2, Pia Reittner2, Pascal A Baltzer3. 1. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna (AKH), Waehringer-Guertel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: claudio.spick@meduniwien.ac.at. 2. Diagnostikum Graz-Südwest, Weblinger Guertel 25, 8054 Graz, Austria. 3. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna (AKH), Waehringer-Guertel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: pascal.baltzer@meduniwien.ac.at.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of breast MRI if used as a problem-solving tool in BI-RADS 0 cases. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this IRB-approved, single-center study, 687 women underwent high-resolution-3D, dynamic contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) between January 2012 and December 2012. Of these, we analyzed 111 consecutive patients (mean age, 51 ± 12 years; range, 20-83 years) categorized as BI-RADS 0. Breast MRI findings were stratified by clinical presentations, conventional imaging findings, and breast density. MRI results were compared to the reference standard, defined as histopathology or an imaging follow-up of at least 1 year. RESULTS: One hundred eleven patients with BI-RADS 0 conventional imaging findings revealed 30 (27%) mammographic masses, 57 (51.4%) mammographic architectural distortions, five (4.5%) mammographic microcalcifications, 17 (15.3%) ultrasound-only findings, and two palpable findings without imaging correlates. There were 15 true-positive, 85 true-negative, 11 false-positive, and zero false-negative breast MRI findings, resulting in a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 100% (15/15), 88.5% (85/96), 57.7% (15/26), and 100% (85/85), respectively. Breast density and reasons for referral had no significant influence on the diagnostic performance of breast MRI (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Breast MRI reliably excludes malignancy in conventional BI-RADS 0 cases resulting in a NPV of 100% (85/85) and a PPV of 57.7% (15/26).
PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of breast MRI if used as a problem-solving tool in BI-RADS 0 cases. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this IRB-approved, single-center study, 687 women underwent high-resolution-3D, dynamic contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) between January 2012 and December 2012. Of these, we analyzed 111 consecutive patients (mean age, 51 ± 12 years; range, 20-83 years) categorized as BI-RADS 0. Breast MRI findings were stratified by clinical presentations, conventional imaging findings, and breast density. MRI results were compared to the reference standard, defined as histopathology or an imaging follow-up of at least 1 year. RESULTS: One hundred eleven patients with BI-RADS 0 conventional imaging findings revealed 30 (27%) mammographic masses, 57 (51.4%) mammographic architectural distortions, five (4.5%) mammographic microcalcifications, 17 (15.3%) ultrasound-only findings, and two palpable findings without imaging correlates. There were 15 true-positive, 85 true-negative, 11 false-positive, and zero false-negative breast MRI findings, resulting in a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 100% (15/15), 88.5% (85/96), 57.7% (15/26), and 100% (85/85), respectively. Breast density and reasons for referral had no significant influence on the diagnostic performance of breast MRI (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Breast MRI reliably excludes malignancy in conventional BI-RADS 0 cases resulting in a NPV of 100% (85/85) and a PPV of 57.7% (15/26).
Authors: Füsun Taşkın; Yasemin Polat; İbrahim H Erdoğdu; Figen T Türkdoğan; Veli Suha Öztürk; Serdar Özbaş Journal: Diagn Interv Radiol Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 2.630
Authors: Maria J Garcia-Velloso; Maria J Ribelles; Macarena Rodriguez; Alejandro Fernandez-Montero; Lidia Sancho; Elena Prieto; Marta Santisteban; Natalia Rodriguez-Spiteri; Miguel A Idoate; Fernando Martinez-Regueira; Arlette Elizalde; Luis J Pina Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-12-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Kelly S Myers; Eniola T Oluyemi; Lisa A Mullen; Babita Panigrahi; Philip A Di Carlo; Derek L Nguyen; Emily B Ambinder Journal: J Breast Imaging Date: 2022-06-20
Authors: Claudio Spick; Dieter H M Szolar; Klaus W Preidler; Pia Reittner; Katharina Rauch; Peter Brader; Manfred Tillich; Pascal A Baltzer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-01-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Paola Clauser; Ritse Mann; Alexandra Athanasiou; Helmut Prosch; Katja Pinker; Matthias Dietzel; Thomas H Helbich; Michael Fuchsjäger; Julia Camps-Herrero; Francesco Sardanelli; Gabor Forrai; Pascal A T Baltzer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-11-22 Impact factor: 5.315