Habib Rahbar1, Jane L Conlin2, Sana Parsian2, Wendy B DeMartini3, Sue Peacock2, Constance D Lehman2, Savannah C Partridge2. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, 825 Eastlake Ave East, Seattle, WA 98109-1023; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA. Electronic address: hrahbar@uw.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, 825 Eastlake Ave East, Seattle, WA 98109-1023; Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle, WA. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To determine whether quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) and diffusion-weighted (DW) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features can discriminate malignant from benign axillary lymph nodes (ALNs) identified as suspicious on clinical breast MRI in patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After approval from institutional review board, all clinical breast MR examinations performed from March 2006 through January 2010 describing at least one morphologically suspicious ipsilateral ALN in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer were identified. Each suspicious ALN underwent ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy, and nodes with benign results were subsequently sampled surgically. Quantitative DCE and DW MRI parameters (diameters, volume, enhancement kinetics, and apparent diffusion coefficients [ADC]) were measured for each suspicious ALN and a representative contralateral normal node, and each feature was compared between the ALN groups (normal, benign, and malignant). RESULTS: Thirty-four suspicious ALNs (18 malignant and 16 benign) and 34 contralateral normal-appearing ALNs were included. Suspicious malignant and benign nodes exhibited larger size, greater volume, and lower ADCs than normal ALNs (P < .05). Among suspicious ALNs, the only quantitative measure that discriminated between malignant from benign outcome was percent of ALN demonstrating washout kinetics (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: In ALNs deemed morphologically suspicious on breast MRI, quantitative MRI features show little value in identifying those with malignant etiology.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To determine whether quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) and diffusion-weighted (DW) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features can discriminate malignant from benign axillary lymph nodes (ALNs) identified as suspicious on clinical breast MRI in patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After approval from institutional review board, all clinical breast MR examinations performed from March 2006 through January 2010 describing at least one morphologically suspicious ipsilateral ALN in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer were identified. Each suspicious ALN underwent ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy, and nodes with benign results were subsequently sampled surgically. Quantitative DCE and DW MRI parameters (diameters, volume, enhancement kinetics, and apparent diffusion coefficients [ADC]) were measured for each suspicious ALN and a representative contralateral normal node, and each feature was compared between the ALN groups (normal, benign, and malignant). RESULTS: Thirty-four suspicious ALNs (18 malignant and 16 benign) and 34 contralateral normal-appearing ALNs were included. Suspicious malignant and benign nodes exhibited larger size, greater volume, and lower ADCs than normal ALNs (P < .05). Among suspicious ALNs, the only quantitative measure that discriminated between malignant from benign outcome was percent of ALN demonstrating washout kinetics (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: In ALNs deemed morphologically suspicious on breast MRI, quantitative MRI features show little value in identifying those with malignant etiology.
Authors: Christopher Loiselle; Peter R Eby; Janice N Kim; Kristine E Calhoun; Kimberly H Allison; Vijayakrishna K Gadi; Sue Peacock; Barry E Storer; David A Mankoff; Savannah C Partridge; Constance D Lehman Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: A D Murray; R T Staff; T W Redpath; F J Gilbert; A K Ah-See; J A Brookes; I D Miller; S Payne Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Constance D Lehman; Constantine Gatsonis; Christiane K Kuhl; R Edward Hendrick; Etta D Pisano; Lucy Hanna; Sue Peacock; Stanley F Smazal; Daniel D Maki; Thomas B Julian; Elizabeth R DePeri; David A Bluemke; Mitchell D Schnall Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-03-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Umberto Veronesi; Giovanni Paganelli; Giuseppe Viale; Alberto Luini; Stefano Zurrida; Viviana Galimberti; Mattia Intra; Paolo Veronesi; Chris Robertson; Patrick Maisonneuve; Giuseppe Renne; Concetta De Cicco; Francesca De Lucia; Roberto Gennari Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-08-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Joseph J Weber; Maxine S Jochelson; Anne Eaton; Emily C Zabor; Andrea V Barrio; Mary L Gemignani; Melissa Pilewskie; Kimberly J Van Zee; Monica Morrow; Mahmoud El-Tamer Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2017-09-15 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Rachelle Crescenzi; Paula M Donahue; Vaughn G Braxton; Allison O Scott; Helen B Mahany; Sarah K Lants; Manus J Donahue Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2018-10-12 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Su Min Ha; Jung Min Chang; Soo-Yeon Kim; Su Hyun Lee; Eun Sil Kim; Yeon Soo Kim; Nariya Cho; Woo Kyung Moon Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-01-03 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Pietro Bontempi; Alice Busato; Giamaica Conti; Sabino Walter Della Sala; Pasquina Marzola; Paolo Farace Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging Date: 2019-04-04 Impact factor: 3.161
Authors: Joao V Horvat; Elizabeth A Morris; Blanca Bernard-Davila; Danny F Martinez; Doris Leithner; Rosa Elena Ochoa-Albiztegui; Sunitha B Thakur; Katja Pinker Journal: Breast J Date: 2019-06-07 Impact factor: 2.431