Habib Rahbar1, Wendy B DeMartini2, Amie Y Lee2, Savannah C Partridge2, Sue Peacock2, Constance D Lehman2. 1. University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Section, 825 Eastlake Avenue East, Seattle, WA 98109-1023, USA. Electronic address: hrahbar@uw.edu. 2. University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Section, 825 Eastlake Avenue East, Seattle, WA 98109-1023, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: While 3T breast magnetic resonance imaging has increased in use over the past decade, there is little data comparing its use for assessing ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) versus 1.5 T. We sought to compare the accuracies of DCIS extent of disease measures on pre-operative 3T versus 1.5 T MRI. METHODS: This institutional review board-approved prospective study included 20 patients with ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed by core needle biopsy (CNB) who underwent pre-operative breast MRI at both 3T (resolution=0.5 mm×0.5 mm×1.3 mm) and 1.5 T (0.85 mm×0.85 mm×1.6 mm). All patients provided informed consent, and the study was HIPPA compliant. Lesion sizes and imaging characteristics (morphologic and kinetic enhancement) were recorded for the 3 T and 1.5 T examinations. Lesion size measures at both field strengths were correlated to final pathology, and imaging characteristics also were compared. RESULTS: Of the initial cohort of 20 patients with CNB-diagnosed DCIS, 19 underwent definitive surgery. Median DCIS sizes of these 19 patients were 6mm (range: 0-67 mm) on 3T, 13 mm (0-60 mm) on 1.5 T, and 6mm (0-55 mm) on surgical pathology. Size correlation between MRI and pathology was higher for 3T (Spearman's ρ=0.66, p=0.002) than 1.5 T (ρ=0.36, p=0.13). In 10 women in which a residual area of suspicious enhancement was identified on both field strengths, there was agreement of morphologic description (NME vs. mass) in nine, and no significant difference in dynamic contrast enhanced kinetics at 3T compared to 1.5 T. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-operative breast MRI at 3T provided higher correlation with final pathology size of DCIS lesions compared to 1.5 T, and may be more accurate for assessment of disease extent prior to definitive surgery.
OBJECTIVES: While 3T breast magnetic resonance imaging has increased in use over the past decade, there is little data comparing its use for assessing ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) versus 1.5 T. We sought to compare the accuracies of DCIS extent of disease measures on pre-operative 3T versus 1.5 T MRI. METHODS: This institutional review board-approved prospective study included 20 patients with ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed by core needle biopsy (CNB) who underwent pre-operative breast MRI at both 3T (resolution=0.5 mm×0.5 mm×1.3 mm) and 1.5 T (0.85 mm×0.85 mm×1.6 mm). All patients provided informed consent, and the study was HIPPA compliant. Lesion sizes and imaging characteristics (morphologic and kinetic enhancement) were recorded for the 3 T and 1.5 T examinations. Lesion size measures at both field strengths were correlated to final pathology, and imaging characteristics also were compared. RESULTS: Of the initial cohort of 20 patients with CNB-diagnosed DCIS, 19 underwent definitive surgery. Median DCIS sizes of these 19 patients were 6mm (range: 0-67 mm) on 3T, 13 mm (0-60 mm) on 1.5 T, and 6mm (0-55 mm) on surgical pathology. Size correlation between MRI and pathology was higher for 3T (Spearman's ρ=0.66, p=0.002) than 1.5 T (ρ=0.36, p=0.13). In 10 women in which a residual area of suspicious enhancement was identified on both field strengths, there was agreement of morphologic description (NME vs. mass) in nine, and no significant difference in dynamic contrast enhanced kinetics at 3T compared to 1.5 T. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-operative breast MRI at 3T provided higher correlation with final pathology size of DCIS lesions compared to 1.5 T, and may be more accurate for assessment of disease extent prior to definitive surgery.
Authors: E Shelley Hwang; Karen Kinkel; Laura J Esserman; Ying Lu; Noel Weidner; Nola M Hylton Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Philip A Araoz; James F Glockner; Kiaran P McGee; D Dean Potter; V Uma Valeti; David W Stanley; Timothy F Christian Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2005 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Christiane K Kuhl; Simone Schrading; Heribert B Bieling; Eva Wardelmann; Claudia C Leutner; Roy Koenig; Walther Kuhn; Hans H Schild Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-08-11 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Laura J Esserman; Anjali S Kumar; Alex F Herrera; Jessica Leung; Alfred Au; Yunn-Yi Chen; Dan H Moore; Daniel F Chen; Jennifer Hellawell; Dulcy Wolverton; E Shelley Hwang; Nola M Hylton Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-10-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Eric L Rosen; Stacy A Smith-Foley; Wendy B DeMartini; Peter R Eby; Sue Peacock; Constance D Lehman Journal: Breast J Date: 2007 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Christiane K Kuhl; Petra Jost; Nuschin Morakkabati; Oliver Zivanovic; Hans H Schild; Jürgen Gieseke Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-03-20 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Mary F Dillon; Enda W Mc Dermott; Ann O'Doherty; Cecily M Quinn; Arnold D Hill; Niall O'Higgins Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2007-02-14 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Ricardo Roque; Mariana Robalo Cordeiro; Mónica Armas; Francisco Caramelo; Filipe Caseiro-Alves; Margarida Figueiredo-Dias Journal: NPJ Breast Cancer Date: 2022-06-29
Authors: Gisela L G Menezes; Bertine L Stehouwer; Dennis W J Klomp; Tijl A van der Velden; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Floortje M Knuttel; Vincent O Boer; Wybe J M van der Kemp; Peter R Luijten; Wouter B Veldhuis Journal: Springerplus Date: 2016-01-05
Authors: Jing Luo; Daniel S Hippe; Habib Rahbar; Sana Parsian; Mara H Rendi; Savannah C Partridge Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2019-09-04 Impact factor: 6.466