Stefania Montemezzi1, Carlo Cavedon2, Lucia Camera3, Gabriele Meliadò2, Francesca Caumo3, Ilaria Baglio3, Francesco Sardanelli4. 1. Radiology Unit, Department of Pathology and Diagnostics, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata - Verona, P.le Stefani 1, 37126, Verona, Italy. stefania.montemezzi@ospedaleuniverona.it. 2. Medical Physics Unit, Department of Pathology and Diagnostics, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata - Verona, P.le Stefani 1, 37126, Verona, Italy. 3. Radiology Unit, Department of Pathology and Diagnostics, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata - Verona, P.le Stefani 1, 37126, Verona, Italy. 4. Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Radiology Unit, Università degli Studi di Milano, Research Hospital Policlinico San Donato, Via Morandi 30, 20097, San Donato Milanese, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To test 3T proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1H-MRS) for breast mass lesions. METHODS: Patients with BI-RADS 4-5 lesions at mammography/ultrasound were prospectively enrolled. After contrast-enhanced breast MRI, single-voxel MRS (point-resolved volume selection, PRESS); pencil-beam shimming; volume of interest 1 cm3; TR/TE = 3000/135 ms) was performed. Spectra were considered reliable if the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the water peak was ≤45 Hz. A signal-to-noise ratio of the total choline (tCho) peak at 3.21 ppm ≥2 was used as cutoff for malignancy. All lesions underwent needle sampling. Final pathology was available for all malignant lesions; for benign lesions the reference standard was final pathology or at least 1-year negative follow-up. RESULTS: Reliable spectra were obtained in 115/127 lesions (91%), with a mean FWHM of 32.4 Hz (range 8-45 Hz). A tCho peak SNR ≥2 was detected in 66 malignant lesions (62 invasive cancers; 4 ductal carcinoma in situ) and in 3 benign lesions. Excluding lesions located ≤1 cm from the skin (n = 3) or pectoral muscle (n = 11), sensitivity was 65/73 [89%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 80-95%], and specificity 25/28 (89%) (95% CI: 72-98%). Considering only invasive cancers, sensitivity reached 61/68 (90%, 95% CI: 81-96%). MRS additional time was 8 min. CONCLUSIONS: When lesions close to the skin or pectoral muscle are excluded, 3T 1H-MRS of mass lesions ≥1 cm showed a high diagnostic performance, however, insufficient to avoid needle biopsy.
OBJECTIVES: To test 3T proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1H-MRS) for breast mass lesions. METHODS:Patients with BI-RADS 4-5 lesions at mammography/ultrasound were prospectively enrolled. After contrast-enhanced breast MRI, single-voxel MRS (point-resolved volume selection, PRESS); pencil-beam shimming; volume of interest 1 cm3; TR/TE = 3000/135 ms) was performed. Spectra were considered reliable if the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the water peak was ≤45 Hz. A signal-to-noise ratio of the total choline (tCho) peak at 3.21 ppm ≥2 was used as cutoff for malignancy. All lesions underwent needle sampling. Final pathology was available for all malignant lesions; for benign lesions the reference standard was final pathology or at least 1-year negative follow-up. RESULTS: Reliable spectra were obtained in 115/127 lesions (91%), with a mean FWHM of 32.4 Hz (range 8-45 Hz). A tCho peak SNR ≥2 was detected in 66 malignant lesions (62 invasive cancers; 4 ductal carcinoma in situ) and in 3 benign lesions. Excluding lesions located ≤1 cm from the skin (n = 3) or pectoral muscle (n = 11), sensitivity was 65/73 [89%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 80-95%], and specificity 25/28 (89%) (95% CI: 72-98%). Considering only invasive cancers, sensitivity reached 61/68 (90%, 95% CI: 81-96%). MRS additional time was 8 min. CONCLUSIONS: When lesions close to the skin or pectoral muscle are excluded, 3T 1H-MRS of mass lesions ≥1 cm showed a high diagnostic performance, however, insufficient to avoid needle biopsy.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast; Breast cancer; Magnetic resonance imaging; Proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1H-MRS)
Authors: Pascal A T Baltzer; Matthias Benndorf; Matthias Dietzel; Mieczyslaw Gajda; Ingo B Runnebaum; Werner A Kaiser Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: K A Kvistad; I J Bakken; I S Gribbestad; B Ehrnholm; S Lundgren; H E Fjøsne; O Haraldseth Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1999-08 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: W B Mackinnon; P A Barry; P L Malycha; D J Gillett; P Russell; C L Lean; S T Doran; B H Barraclough; M Bilous; C E Mountford Journal: Radiology Date: 1997-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Monique D Dorrius; Rudolf M Pijnappel; Marijke C Jansen-van der Weide; Liesbeth Jansen; Peter Kappert; Matthijs Oudkerk; Paul E Sijens Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-04-01 Impact factor: 11.105