Lars J Grimm1, Mary S Soo2, Sora Yoon2, Connie Kim2, Sujata V Ghate2, Karen S Johnson2. 1. Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3808, Durham, NC 27710. Electronic address: Lars.grimm@duke.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3808, Durham, NC 27710.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance of two shortened breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocols to a standard MRI protocol for breast cancer screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant, institutional review board-approved pilot study, three fellowship-trained breast imagers evaluated 48 breast MRIs (24 normal, 12 benign, and 12 malignant) selected from a high-risk screening population. MRIs were presented in three viewing protocols, and a final Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System assessment was recorded for each case. The first shortened protocol (abbreviated 1) included only fat-saturated precontrast T2-weighted, precontrast T1-weighted, and first pass T1-weighted postcontrast sequences. The second shortened protocol (abbreviated 2) included the abbreviated 1 protocol plus the second pass T1-weighted postcontrast sequence. The third protocol (full), reviewed after a 1-month waiting period, included a nonfat-saturated T1-weighted sequence, fat-saturated T2-weighted, precontrast T1-weighted, and three or four dynamic postcontrast sequences. Interpretation times were recorded for the abbreviated 1 and full protocols. Sensitivity and specificity were compared via a chi-squared analysis. This pilot study was designed to detect a 10% difference in sensitivity with a power of 0.8. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in sensitivity between the abbreviated 1 (86%; P = .22) or abbreviated 2 (89%; P = .38) protocols and the full protocol (95%). There was no significant difference in specificity between the abbreviated 1 (52%; P = 1) or abbreviated 2 (45%; P = .34) protocols and the full protocol (52%). The abbreviated 1 and full protocol interpretation times were similar (2.98 vs. 3.56 minutes). CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, reader performance comparing two shortened breast MRI protocols to a standard protocol in a screening cohort were similar, suggesting that a shortened breast MRI protocol may be clinically useful, warranting further investigation.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance of two shortened breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocols to a standard MRI protocol for breast cancer screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant, institutional review board-approved pilot study, three fellowship-trained breast imagers evaluated 48 breast MRIs (24 normal, 12 benign, and 12 malignant) selected from a high-risk screening population. MRIs were presented in three viewing protocols, and a final Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System assessment was recorded for each case. The first shortened protocol (abbreviated 1) included only fat-saturated precontrast T2-weighted, precontrast T1-weighted, and first pass T1-weighted postcontrast sequences. The second shortened protocol (abbreviated 2) included the abbreviated 1 protocol plus the second pass T1-weighted postcontrast sequence. The third protocol (full), reviewed after a 1-month waiting period, included a nonfat-saturated T1-weighted sequence, fat-saturated T2-weighted, precontrast T1-weighted, and three or four dynamic postcontrast sequences. Interpretation times were recorded for the abbreviated 1 and full protocols. Sensitivity and specificity were compared via a chi-squared analysis. This pilot study was designed to detect a 10% difference in sensitivity with a power of 0.8. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in sensitivity between the abbreviated 1 (86%; P = .22) or abbreviated 2 (89%; P = .38) protocols and the full protocol (95%). There was no significant difference in specificity between the abbreviated 1 (52%; P = 1) or abbreviated 2 (45%; P = .34) protocols and the full protocol (52%). The abbreviated 1 and full protocol interpretation times were similar (2.98 vs. 3.56 minutes). CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, reader performance comparing two shortened breast MRI protocols to a standard protocol in a screening cohort were similar, suggesting that a shortened breast MRI protocol may be clinically useful, warranting further investigation.
Authors: Laura Heacock; Alana A Lewin; Yiming Gao; James S Babb; Samantha L Heller; Amy N Melsaether; Neeti Bagadiya; Sungheon G Kim; Linda Moy Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-11-27 Impact factor: 4.813
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: Marion E Scoggins; Banu K Arun; Rosalind P Candelaria; Mark J Dryden; Wei Wei; Jong Bum Son; Jingfei Ma; Basak E Dogan Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2020-07-02 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Ko Woon Park; Sol Bee Han; Boo-Kyung Han; Eun Sook Ko; Ji Soo Choi; Sun Jung Rhee; Eun Young Ko Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2020-01-16 Impact factor: 3.039