Literature DB >> 27327403

Can we apply the MRI BI-RADS lexicon morphology descriptors on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography?

Rasha M Kamal1, Maha H Helal2, Sahar M Mansour1, Marwa A Haggag2, Omniya M Nada2, Iman G Farahat3, Nelly H Alieldin4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: : To assess the feasibility of using the MRI breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) lexicon morphology descriptors to characterize enhancing breast lesions identified on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM).
METHODS: : The study is a retrospective analysis of the morphology descriptors of 261 enhancing breast lesions identified on CESM in 239 patients. We presented the morphological categorization of the included lesions into focus, mass and non-mass. Further classifications included (1) the multiplicity for "focus" category, (2) the shape, margin and internal enhancement for "mass" category and (3) the distribution and internal enhancement for "non-mass" category. Each morphology descriptor was evaluated individually (irrespective of all other descriptors) by calculating its sensitivity, specificity, positive-predictive value (PPV) and negative-predictive value (NPV) and likelihood ratios (LRs).
RESULTS: : The study included 68/261 (26.1%) benign lesions and 193/261 (73.9%) malignant lesions. Intensely enhancing foci, whether single (7/12, 58.3%) or multiple (2/12, 16.7%), were malignant. Descriptors of "irregular"-shape (PPV: 92.4%) and "non-circumscribed" margin (odds ratio: 55.2, LR positive: 4.77; p-value: <0.001) were more compatible with malignancy. Internal mass enhancement patterns showed a very low specificity (58.0%) and NPV (40.0%). Non-mass enhancement (NME) was detected in 81/261 lesions. Asymmetrical NME in 81% (n = 52/81) lesions was malignant lesions and internal enhancement patterns indicative of malignancy were the heterogeneous and clumped ones.
CONCLUSION: : We can apply the MRI morphology descriptors to characterize lesions on CESM, but with few expectations. In many situations, irregular-shaped, non-circumscribed masses and NME with focal, ductal or segmental distribution and heterogeneous or clumped enhancement are the most suggestive descriptors of malignant pathologies. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE:: (1) The MRI BI-RADS lexicon morphology descriptors can be applied in the characterization of enhancing lesions on CESM with a few exceptions. (2) Multiple bilateral intensely enhancing foci should not be included under the normal background parenchymal enhancement unless they are proved to be benign by biopsy. (3) Mass lesion features that indicated malignancy were irregular-shaped, spiculated and irregular margins and heterogeneous internal enhancement patterns. The rim enhancement pattern should not be considered as a descriptor of malignant lesions unless CESM is coupled with an ultrasound examination.

Entities:  

Year:  2016        PMID: 27327403      PMCID: PMC5124889          DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20160157

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  16 in total

1.  Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment.

Authors:  W A Berg; C Campassi; P Langenberg; M J Sexton
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 2.  Pearls and pitfalls in breast MRI.

Authors:  I Millet; E Pages; D Hoa; S Merigeaud; F Curros Doyon; X Prat; P Taourel
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-11-29       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 3.  The current status of breast MR imaging. Part I. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice.

Authors:  Christiane Kuhl
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Non-mass-like enhancement on contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging: lesion characterization using combination of dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR images.

Authors:  Hidetake Yabuuchi; Yoshio Matsuo; Takeshi Kamitani; Taro Setoguchi; Takashi Okafuji; Hiroyasu Soeda; Shuji Sakai; Masamitsu Hatakenaka; Makoto Kubo; Eriko Tokunaga; Hidetaka Yamamoto; Hiroshi Honda
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2009-09-30       Impact factor: 3.528

5.  Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) lexicon for breast MRI: interobserver variability in the description and assignment of BI-RADS category.

Authors:  Mona El Khoury; Lucie Lalonde; Julie David; Maude Labelle; Benoit Mesurolle; Isabelle Trop
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2014-10-16       Impact factor: 3.528

6.  Does size matter? Positive predictive value of MRI-detected breast lesions as a function of lesion size.

Authors:  Laura Liberman; Gary Mason; Elizabeth A Morris; D David Dershaw
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 7.  Concepts for differential diagnosis in breast MR imaging.

Authors:  Christiane K Kuhl
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 2.266

8.  Positive predictive value of BI-RADS MR imaging.

Authors:  Mary C Mahoney; Constantine Gatsonis; Lucy Hanna; Wendy B DeMartini; Constance Lehman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-05-15       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Significance of breast lesion descriptors in the ACR BI-RADS MRI lexicon.

Authors:  Garima Agrawal; Min-Ying Su; Orhan Nalcioglu; Stephen A Feig; Jeon-Hor Chen
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2009-04-01       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) in the Dutch breast cancer screening programme: its role as an assessment and stratification tool.

Authors:  J M H Timmers; H J van Doorne-Nagtegaal; H M Zonderland; H van Tinteren; O Visser; A L M Verbeek; G J den Heeten; M J M Broeders
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 5.315

View more
  7 in total

1.  Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced dual-energy spectral mammography (CESM): a retrospective study involving 644 breast lesions.

Authors:  María Del Mar Travieso-Aja; Daniel Maldonado-Saluzzi; Pedro Naranjo-Santana; Claudia Fernández-Ruiz; Wilsa Severino-Rondón; Mario Rodríguez Rodríguez; Víctor Vega Benítez; Octavio Pérez-Luzardo
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2019-06-27       Impact factor: 3.469

2.  Incorporating the clinical and radiomics features of contrast-enhanced mammography to classify breast lesions: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Simin Wang; Yuqi Sun; Ning Mao; Shaofeng Duan; Qin Li; Ruimin Li; Tingting Jiang; Zhongyi Wang; Haizhu Xie; Yajia Gu
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2021-10

3.  Comparison of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography and Contrast-Enhanced MRI in Screening Multifocal and Multicentric Lesions in Breast Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Lei Feng; Lei Sheng; Litao Zhang; Na Li; Yuanzhong Xie
Journal:  Contrast Media Mol Imaging       Date:  2022-04-06       Impact factor: 3.009

Review 4.  Contrast-enhanced mammography: past, present, and future.

Authors:  Julie Sogani; Victoria L Mango; Delia Keating; Janice S Sung; Maxine S Jochelson
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  2020-09-19       Impact factor: 1.605

5.  Can the delayed phase of quantitative contrast-enhanced mammography improve the diagnostic performance on breast masses?

Authors:  Weimin Xu; Bowen Zheng; Weiguo Chen; Chanjuan Wen; Hui Zeng; Zilong He; Genggeng Qin; Yingjia Li
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2021-08

6.  Association between quantitative and qualitative image features of contrast-enhanced mammography and molecular subtypes of breast cancer.

Authors:  Simin Wang; Zhenxun Wang; Ruimin Li; Chao You; Ning Mao; Tingting Jiang; Zhongyi Wang; Haizhu Xie; Yajia Gu
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2022-02

Review 7.  How Dual-Energy Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography Can Provide Useful Clinical Information About Prognostic Factors in Breast Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review of Literature.

Authors:  Federica Vasselli; Alessandra Fabi; Francesca Romana Ferranti; Maddalena Barba; Claudio Botti; Antonello Vidiri; Silvia Tommasin
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-07-22       Impact factor: 5.738

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.