Anja Baltzer1, Matthias Dietzel2, Clemens G Kaiser3, Pascal A Baltzer4. 1. Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Medical University of Vienna (AKH), Waehringer-Guertel 18-20, A-1090, Vienna, Austria. 2. Department of Neuroradiology, University Hospital Erlangen, Schwabachanlage 6, D-91054, Erlangen, Germany. 3. Institute of Clinical Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, D-68167, Mannheim, Germany. 4. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna (AKH), General Hospital Vienna, Waehringer-Guertel 18-20, A-1090, Vienna, Austria. pascal.baltzer@meduniwien.ac.at.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To improve specificity of breast MRI by integrating Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) values with contrast enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) using a simple sum score. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of a consecutive series of patients referred to breast MRI at 1.5 T for further workup of breast lesions. Reading results of CE-MRI were dichotomized into score 1 (suspicious) or 0 (benign). Lesion's ADC-values (in *10-3 mm2/s) were assigned two different scores: ADC2: likely malignant (score +1, ADC ≤ 1), indeterminate (score 0, ADC >1- ≤ 1.4) and likely benign (score -1, ADC > 1.4) and ADC1: indeterminate (score 0, ADC ≤ 1.4) and likely benign (score -1, ADC > 1.4). Final added CE-MRI and ADC scores >0 were considered suspicious. Reference standard was histology and imaging follow-up of >24 months. Diagnostic parameters were compared using McNemar tests. RESULTS: A total of 150 lesions (73 malignant) were investigated. Reading of CE-MRI showed a sensitivity of 100 % (73/73) and a specificity of 81.8 % (63/77). Additional integration of ADC scores increased specificity (ADC2/ADC1, P = 0.008/0.001) without causing false negative results. CONCLUSION: Using a simple sum score, ADC-values can be integrated with CE-MRI of the breast, improving specificity. The best approach is using one threshold to exclude cancer. KEY POINTS: ADC is used to assign levels of suspicion to breast lesions. ADC values >1.4 *10 (-3) mm (2) /s are likely benign and effectively rule out malignancy. ADC values below ≤1*10 (-3) mm (2) /s) are likely malignant but may be false positive. CE-MRI (+1: suspicious, 0: benign) and ADC (0: indeterminate, -1: benign) scores are added. Sum scores >0 should be biopsied.
OBJECTIVE: To improve specificity of breast MRI by integrating Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) values with contrast enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) using a simple sum score. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of a consecutive series of patients referred to breast MRI at 1.5 T for further workup of breast lesions. Reading results of CE-MRI were dichotomized into score 1 (suspicious) or 0 (benign). Lesion's ADC-values (in *10-3 mm2/s) were assigned two different scores: ADC2: likely malignant (score +1, ADC ≤ 1), indeterminate (score 0, ADC >1- ≤ 1.4) and likely benign (score -1, ADC > 1.4) and ADC1: indeterminate (score 0, ADC ≤ 1.4) and likely benign (score -1, ADC > 1.4). Final added CE-MRI and ADC scores >0 were considered suspicious. Reference standard was histology and imaging follow-up of >24 months. Diagnostic parameters were compared using McNemar tests. RESULTS: A total of 150 lesions (73 malignant) were investigated. Reading of CE-MRI showed a sensitivity of 100 % (73/73) and a specificity of 81.8 % (63/77). Additional integration of ADC scores increased specificity (ADC2/ADC1, P = 0.008/0.001) without causing false negative results. CONCLUSION: Using a simple sum score, ADC-values can be integrated with CE-MRI of the breast, improving specificity. The best approach is using one threshold to exclude cancer. KEY POINTS: ADC is used to assign levels of suspicion to breast lesions. ADC values >1.4 *10 (-3) mm (2) /s are likely benign and effectively rule out malignancy. ADC values below ≤1*10 (-3) mm (2) /s) are likely malignant but may be false positive. CE-MRI (+1: suspicious, 0: benign) and ADC (0: indeterminate, -1: benign) scores are added. Sum scores >0 should be biopsied.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast neoplasms; Contrast enhanced MRI; Diffusion Weighted Imaging; MR imaging; Sensitivity and Specificity
Authors: Luminita A Tudorica; Karen Y Oh; Nicole Roy; Mark D Kettler; Yiyi Chen; Stephanie L Hemmingson; Aneela Afzal; John W Grinstead; Gerhard Laub; Xin Li; Wei Huang Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-07-06 Impact factor: 2.546
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: R Prevos; M L Smidt; V C G Tjan-Heijnen; M van Goethem; R G Beets-Tan; J E Wildberger; M B I Lobbes Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-09-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Robert L Gutierrez; Roberta M Strigel; Savannah C Partridge; Wendy B DeMartini; Peter R Eby; Karen M Stone; Sue Peacock; Constance D Lehman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Wolfgang Bogner; Katja Pinker-Domenig; Hubert Bickel; Marek Chmelik; Michael Weber; Thomas H Helbich; Siegfried Trattnig; Stephan Gruber Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 11.105
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
Authors: Ellen Warner; Hans Messersmith; Petrina Causer; Andrea Eisen; Rene Shumak; Donald Plewes Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-05-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Maria Adele Marino; Paola Clauser; Ramona Woitek; Georg J Wengert; Panagiotis Kapetas; Maria Bernathova; Katja Pinker-Domenig; Thomas H Helbich; Klaus Preidler; Pascal A T Baltzer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-10-29 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Katja Pinker; Linda Moy; Elizabeth J Sutton; Ritse M Mann; Michael Weber; Sunitha B Thakur; Maxine S Jochelson; Zsuzsanna Bago-Horvath; Elizabeth A Morris; Pascal At Baltzer; Thomas H Helbich Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: D Leithner; G J Wengert; T H Helbich; S Thakur; R E Ochoa-Albiztegui; E A Morris; K Pinker Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2017-12-09 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Sana Parsian; Nadia V Giannakopoulos; Habib Rahbar; Mara H Rendi; Xiaoyu Chai; Savannah C Partridge Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2016-06-13 Impact factor: 1.605