Alberto Tagliafico1, Bianca Bignotti2, Giulio Tagliafico3, Simona Tosto4, Alessio Signori2, Massimo Calabrese4. 1. 1 Institute of Anatomy, Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Genoa, Genova, Italy. 2. 2 Department of Health Sciences (DISSAL), University of Genoa, Genova, Italy. 3. 3 Azienda Sanitaria Locale Genova, Corso Scassi, Genova, Italy. 4. 4 Department of Diagnostic Senology, Ist Istituto Nazionale per la Ricerca sul Cancro, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria San Martino, Genova, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate quantitative measurements of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on breast MRI and compare them with observer-based scores. METHODS: BPE of 48 patients (mean age: 48 years; age range: 36-66 years) referred to 3.0-T breast MRI between 2012 and 2014 was evaluated independently and blindly to each other by two radiologists. BPE was estimated qualitatively with the standard Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) scale and quantitatively with a semi-automatic and an automatic software interface. To assess intrareader agreement, MRIs were re-read after a 4-month interval by the same two readers. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) and the Bland-Altman method were used to compare the methods used to estimate BPE. p-value <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: The mean value of BPE with the semi-automatic software evaluated by each reader was 14% (range: 2-79%) for Reader 1 and 16% (range: 1-61%) for Reader 2 (p > 0.05). Mean values of BPE percentages for the automatic software were 17.5 ± 13.1 (p > 0.05 vs semi-automatic). The automatic software was unable to produce BPE values for 2 of 48 (4%) patients. With BI-RADS, interreader and intrareader values were κ = 0.70 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.91] and κ = 0.69 (95% CI 0.46-0.93), respectively. With semi-automated software, interreader and intrareader values were κ = 0.81 (95% CI 0.59-0.99) and κ = 0.85 (95% CI 0.43-0.99), respectively. BI-RADS scores correlated with the automatic (r = 0.55, p < 0.001) and semi-automatic scores (r = 0.60, p < 0.001). Automatic scores correlated with the semi-automatic scores (r = 0.77, p < 0.001). The mean percentage difference between automatic and semi-automatic scores was 3.5% (95% CI 1.5-5.2). CONCLUSION: BPE quantitative evaluation is feasible with both semi-automatic and automatic software and correlates with radiologists' estimation. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Computerized BPE quantitative evaluation is feasible with both semi-automatic and automatic software. Computerized BPE quantitative scores correlate with radiologists' estimation.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate quantitative measurements of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on breast MRI and compare them with observer-based scores. METHODS: BPE of 48 patients (mean age: 48 years; age range: 36-66 years) referred to 3.0-T breast MRI between 2012 and 2014 was evaluated independently and blindly to each other by two radiologists. BPE was estimated qualitatively with the standard Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) scale and quantitatively with a semi-automatic and an automatic software interface. To assess intrareader agreement, MRIs were re-read after a 4-month interval by the same two readers. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) and the Bland-Altman method were used to compare the methods used to estimate BPE. p-value <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: The mean value of BPE with the semi-automatic software evaluated by each reader was 14% (range: 2-79%) for Reader 1 and 16% (range: 1-61%) for Reader 2 (p > 0.05). Mean values of BPE percentages for the automatic software were 17.5 ± 13.1 (p > 0.05 vs semi-automatic). The automatic software was unable to produce BPE values for 2 of 48 (4%) patients. With BI-RADS, interreader and intrareader values were κ = 0.70 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.91] and κ = 0.69 (95% CI 0.46-0.93), respectively. With semi-automated software, interreader and intrareader values were κ = 0.81 (95% CI 0.59-0.99) and κ = 0.85 (95% CI 0.43-0.99), respectively. BI-RADS scores correlated with the automatic (r = 0.55, p < 0.001) and semi-automatic scores (r = 0.60, p < 0.001). Automatic scores correlated with the semi-automatic scores (r = 0.77, p < 0.001). The mean percentage difference between automatic and semi-automatic scores was 3.5% (95% CI 1.5-5.2). CONCLUSION: BPE quantitative evaluation is feasible with both semi-automatic and automatic software and correlates with radiologists' estimation. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Computerized BPE quantitative evaluation is feasible with both semi-automatic and automatic software. Computerized BPE quantitative scores correlate with radiologists' estimation.
Authors: Valencia King; Jennifer D Brooks; Jonine L Bernstein; Anne S Reiner; Malcolm C Pike; Elizabeth A Morris Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-04-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Bas H M van der Velden; Ivan Dmitriev; Claudette E Loo; Ruud M Pijnappel; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-03-26 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: A Tagliafico; G Rescinito; F Monetti; A Villa; F Chiesa; E Fisci; D Pace; M Calabrese Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2012-05-14 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Andreas Pettersson; Rebecca E Graff; Giske Ursin; Isabel Dos Santos Silva; Valerie McCormack; Laura Baglietto; Celine Vachon; Marije F Bakker; Graham G Giles; Kee Seng Chia; Kamila Czene; Louise Eriksson; Per Hall; Mikael Hartman; Ruth M L Warren; Greg Hislop; Anna M Chiarelli; John L Hopper; Kavitha Krishnan; Jingmei Li; Qing Li; Ian Pagano; Bernard A Rosner; Chia Siong Wong; Christopher Scott; Jennifer Stone; Gertraud Maskarinec; Norman F Boyd; Carla H van Gils; Rulla M Tamimi Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-05-10 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Leon Lenchik; Laura Heacock; Ashley A Weaver; Robert D Boutin; Tessa S Cook; Jason Itri; Christopher G Filippi; Rao P Gullapalli; James Lee; Marianna Zagurovskaya; Tara Retson; Kendra Godwin; Joey Nicholson; Ponnada A Narayana Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2019-08-10 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: David J Noble; Daniel Scoffings; Thankamma Ajithkumar; Michael V Williams; Sarah J Jefferies Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-09-29 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Geraldine J Liao; Leah C Henze Bancroft; Roberta M Strigel; Rhea D Chitalia; Despina Kontos; Linda Moy; Savannah C Partridge; Habib Rahbar Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-04-19 Impact factor: 4.813