Michele Telegrafo1, Leonarda Rella1, Amato Antonio Stabile Ianora1, Giuseppe Angelelli1, Marco Moschetta2. 1. DIM - Interdisciplinary Department of Medicine - Section of Diagnostic Imaging - Aldo Moro University of Bari Medical School, Piazza Giulio Cesare 11, 70124 Bari, Italy. 2. DIM - Interdisciplinary Department of Medicine - Section of Diagnostic Imaging - Aldo Moro University of Bari Medical School, Piazza Giulio Cesare 11, 70124 Bari, Italy. Electronic address: marco.moschetta@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the role of STIR, T2-weighted TSE and DWIBS sequences for detecting and characterizing breast lesions and to compare unenhanced (UE)-MRI results with contrast-enhanced (CE)-MRI and histological findings, having the latter as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred eighty consecutive patients (age range, 27-73 years; mean age±standard deviation (SD), 48.8±9.8years) underwent MR examination with a diagnostic protocol including STIR, T2-weighted TSE, THRIVE and DWIBS sequences. Two radiologists blinded to both dynamic sequences and histological findings evaluated in consensus STIR, T2-weighted TSE and DWIBS sequences and after two weeks CE-MRI images searching for breast lesions. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy for UE-MRI and CE-MRI were calculated. UE-MRI results were also compared with CE- MRI. RESULTS: UE-MRI sequences obtained sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, PPV and NPV values of 94%, 79%, 86%, 79% and 94%, respectively. CE-MRI sequences obtained sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, PPV and NPV values of 98%, 83%, 90%, 84% and 98%, respectively. No statistically significant difference between UE-MRI and CE-MRI was found. CONCLUSION: Breast UE-MRI could represent an accurate diagnostic tool and a valid alternative to CE-MRI for evaluating breast lesions. STIR and DWIBS sequences allow to detect breast lesions while T2-weighted TSE sequences and ADC values could be useful for lesion characterization.
PURPOSE: To assess the role of STIR, T2-weighted TSE and DWIBS sequences for detecting and characterizing breast lesions and to compare unenhanced (UE)-MRI results with contrast-enhanced (CE)-MRI and histological findings, having the latter as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred eighty consecutive patients (age range, 27-73 years; mean age±standard deviation (SD), 48.8±9.8years) underwent MR examination with a diagnostic protocol including STIR, T2-weighted TSE, THRIVE and DWIBS sequences. Two radiologists blinded to both dynamic sequences and histological findings evaluated in consensus STIR, T2-weighted TSE and DWIBS sequences and after two weeks CE-MRI images searching for breast lesions. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy for UE-MRI and CE-MRI were calculated. UE-MRI results were also compared with CE- MRI. RESULTS: UE-MRI sequences obtained sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, PPV and NPV values of 94%, 79%, 86%, 79% and 94%, respectively. CE-MRI sequences obtained sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, PPV and NPV values of 98%, 83%, 90%, 84% and 98%, respectively. No statistically significant difference between UE-MRI and CE-MRI was found. CONCLUSION: Breast UE-MRI could represent an accurate diagnostic tool and a valid alternative to CE-MRI for evaluating breast lesions. STIR and DWIBS sequences allow to detect breast lesions while T2-weighted TSE sequences and ADC values could be useful for lesion characterization.
Authors: K Deike-Hofmann; T Kuder; F König; D Paech; C Dreher; S Delorme; H-P Schlemmer; S Bickelhaupt Journal: Radiologe Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 0.635
Authors: Sebastian Bickelhaupt; Jana Tesdorff; Frederik Bernd Laun; Tristan Anselm Kuder; Wolfgang Lederer; Susanne Teiner; Klaus Maier-Hein; Heidi Daniel; Anne Stieber; Stefan Delorme; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-05-18 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Sebastian Bickelhaupt; Franziska Steudle; Daniel Paech; Anna Mlynarska; Tristan Anselm Kuder; Wolfgang Lederer; Heidi Daniel; Martin Freitag; Stefan Delorme; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Frederik Bernd Laun Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-04-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Maren M Sjaastad Andreassen; Ana E Rodríguez-Soto; Rebecca Rakow-Penner; Anders M Dale; Christopher C Conlin; Igor Vidić; Tyler M Seibert; Anne M Wallace; Somaye Zare; Joshua Kuperman; Boya Abudu; Grace S Ahn; Michael Hahn; Neil P Jerome; Agnes Østlie; Tone F Bathen; Haydee Ojeda-Fournier; Pål Erik Goa Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-11-04 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: L Losurdo; T M A Basile; A Fanizzi; R Bellotti; U Bottigli; R Carbonara; R Dentamaro; D Diacono; V Didonna; A Lombardi; F Giotta; C Guaragnella; A Mangia; R Massafra; P Tamborra; S Tangaro; D La Forgia Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Jinchao Feng; Junqing Xu; Shudong Jiang; Hong Yin; Yan Zhao; Jiang Gui; Ke Wang; Xiuhua Lv; Fang Ren; Brian W Pogue; Keith D Paulsen Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2017-10-24 Impact factor: 6.466