Laura Heacock1, Amy N Melsaether2, Samantha L Heller3, Yiming Gao4, Kristine M Pysarenko5, James S Babb6, Sungheon G Kim7, Linda Moy8. 1. Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY 10016, United States. Electronic address: Laura.Heacock@nyumc.org. 2. Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY 10016, United States. Electronic address: Amy.Melsaether@nyumc.org. 3. Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY 10016, United States. Electronic address: Samantha.Heller@nyumc.org. 4. Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY 10016, United States. Electronic address: Yiming.Gao@nyumc.org. 5. Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY 10016, United States. Electronic address: Kristine.Pysarenko@nyumc.org. 6. Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY 10016, United States. Electronic address: James.Babb@nyumc.org. 7. Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY 10016, United States; Center for Advanced Imaging Innovation and Research (CAI(2)R), New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY 10016, United States. Electronic address: Gene.Kim@nyumc.org. 8. Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY 10016, United States; Center for Advanced Imaging Innovation and Research (CAI(2)R), New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY 10016, United States. Electronic address: Linda.Moy@nyumc.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates use of an abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging protocol with T2-weighted imaging in detecting biopsy-proven unifocal breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is an institutional review board approved retrospective study of patients with biopsy-proven unifocal breast cancer (88% invasive; 12% in situ) undergoing magnetic resonance imaging. In three separate sessions, three breast imagers evaluated (1) T1-weighted non-contrast, post-contrast and post-contrast subtracted images, (2) T1-weighted images with clinical history and prior imaging, and (3) T1-weighted images and T2-weighted images with clinical history and prior imaging. Protocols were compared for cancer detection, reading time and lesion conspicuity. An independent breast radiologist retrospectively analyzed initial enhancement ratio of cancers and retrospectively reviewed lesion morphology and final pathology. RESULTS: All 107 cancers were identified at first protocol by at least one reader; five cancers were missed by either one or two readers. One cancer was missed by one reader at protocols two and three. Mean percentage detection for protocol one was 97.8%; protocol two, 99.4%, protocol three, 99.4%. T2-weighted images did not alter cancer detection but increased lesion conspicuity for 2/3 readers. 3/5 missed lesions were low grade cancers. Initial enhancement ratio was positively associated with increasing tumor grade (p=0.031) and pathology (p=0.002). Reader interpretation time decreased and lesion conspicuity increased as initial enhancement ratio increased. CONCLUSION: Abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging has high rate of detection for known breast cancer and short interpretation time. T2 weighted imaging increased lesion conspicuity without altering detection rate. Initial enhancement ratio correlated with invasive disease and tumor grade.
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates use of an abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging protocol with T2-weighted imaging in detecting biopsy-proven unifocal breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is an institutional review board approved retrospective study of patients with biopsy-proven unifocal breast cancer (88% invasive; 12% in situ) undergoing magnetic resonance imaging. In three separate sessions, three breast imagers evaluated (1) T1-weighted non-contrast, post-contrast and post-contrast subtracted images, (2) T1-weighted images with clinical history and prior imaging, and (3) T1-weighted images and T2-weighted images with clinical history and prior imaging. Protocols were compared for cancer detection, reading time and lesion conspicuity. An independent breast radiologist retrospectively analyzed initial enhancement ratio of cancers and retrospectively reviewed lesion morphology and final pathology. RESULTS: All 107 cancers were identified at first protocol by at least one reader; five cancers were missed by either one or two readers. One cancer was missed by one reader at protocols two and three. Mean percentage detection for protocol one was 97.8%; protocol two, 99.4%, protocol three, 99.4%. T2-weighted images did not alter cancer detection but increased lesion conspicuity for 2/3 readers. 3/5 missed lesions were low grade cancers. Initial enhancement ratio was positively associated with increasing tumor grade (p=0.031) and pathology (p=0.002). Reader interpretation time decreased and lesion conspicuity increased as initial enhancement ratio increased. CONCLUSION: Abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging has high rate of detection for known breast cancer and short interpretation time. T2 weighted imaging increased lesion conspicuity without altering detection rate. Initial enhancement ratio correlated with invasive disease and tumor grade.
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: Jamal J Derakhshan; Elizabeth S McDonald; Evan S Siegelman; Mitchell D Schnall; Felix W Wehrli Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 4.668
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: Jonghyun Bae; Zhengnan Huang; Florian Knoll; Krzysztof Geras; Terlika Pandit Sood; Li Feng; Laura Heacock; Linda Moy; Sungheon Gene Kim Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2022-01-09 Impact factor: 4.668
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