Shuang-Qing Chen1, Min Huang2, Yu-Ying Shen3, Chen-Lu Liu3, Chuan-Xiao Xu2. 1. Department of Radiology, The Affiliated Suzhou Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, No.16, Bai-Ta-Xi Road, Suzhou 215001, China. Electronic address: sznaonao@163.com. 2. Breast Imaging Screening Center, The Affiliated Suzhou Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Suzhou, China. 3. Department of Radiology, The Affiliated Suzhou Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, No.16, Bai-Ta-Xi Road, Suzhou 215001, China.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of an abbreviated protocol (AP) of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in comparison to a full diagnostic protocol (FDP) of MRI in the breast cancer screening with dense breast tissue. MATERIALS AND METHODS: There are 478 female participants with dense breast tissue and negative mammography results, who were imaged with MRI using AP and FDP. The AP and FDP images were analyzed separately, and the sensitivity and specificity of breast cancer detection were calculated. The chi-square test and receiver operating characteristics curves were used to assess the breast cancer diagnostic capabilities of the two protocols. RESULTS: Sixteen cases of breast cancer from 478 patients with dense breasts were detected using the FDP method, with pathologic confirmation of nine cases of ductal carcinoma in situ, six cases of invasive ductal carcinoma, and one case of mucinous carcinoma. Fifteen cases of breast cancer were successfully screened using the AP method. The sensitivity showed no obvious significant difference between AP and FDP (χ2 = 0.592, P = 0.623), but the specificity showed a statistically significant difference (χ2 = 4.619, P = 0.036). The receiver operating characteristics curves showed high efficacy of both methods in the detection of breast cancer in dense breast tissue (the areas under the curve were 0.931 ± 0.025 and 0.947 ± 0.024, respectively), and the ability to diagnose breast cancer was not statistically significantly different between the two methods. CONCLUSIONS: The AP of MRI may improve the detection rate of breast cancer in dense breast tissue, and it may be useful in efficient breast cancer screening.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to evaluate the usefulness of an abbreviated protocol (AP) of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in comparison to a full diagnostic protocol (FDP) of MRI in the breast cancer screening with dense breast tissue. MATERIALS AND METHODS: There are 478 female participants with dense breast tissue and negative mammography results, who were imaged with MRI using AP and FDP. The AP and FDP images were analyzed separately, and the sensitivity and specificity of breast cancer detection were calculated. The chi-square test and receiver operating characteristics curves were used to assess the breast cancer diagnostic capabilities of the two protocols. RESULTS: Sixteen cases of breast cancer from 478 patients with dense breasts were detected using the FDP method, with pathologic confirmation of nine cases of ductal carcinoma in situ, six cases of invasive ductal carcinoma, and one case of mucinous carcinoma. Fifteen cases of breast cancer were successfully screened using the AP method. The sensitivity showed no obvious significant difference between AP and FDP (χ2 = 0.592, P = 0.623), but the specificity showed a statistically significant difference (χ2 = 4.619, P = 0.036). The receiver operating characteristics curves showed high efficacy of both methods in the detection of breast cancer in dense breast tissue (the areas under the curve were 0.931 ± 0.025 and 0.947 ± 0.024, respectively), and the ability to diagnose breast cancer was not statistically significantly different between the two methods. CONCLUSIONS: The AP of MRI may improve the detection rate of breast cancer in dense breast tissue, and it may be useful in efficient breast cancer screening.
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: Lyn I Jones; Rebecca Geach; Sam A Harding; Christopher Foy; Victoria Taylor; Andrea Marshall; Sian Taylor-Phillips; Janet A Dunn Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-10-03 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Doris Leithner; Linda Moy; Elizabeth A Morris; Maria A Marino; Thomas H Helbich; Katja Pinker Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-09-08 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Roxanna J Hellgren; Ann E Sundbom; Kamila Czene; David Izhaky; Per Hall; Paul W Dickman Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-05-21 Impact factor: 5.315