Antonella Petrillo1, Roberta Fusco2, Mario Sansone3, Marilena Cerbone3, Salvatore Filice1, Annamaria Porto1, Maria Rosaria Rubulotta1, Massimiliano D'Aiuto4, Franca Avino4, Maurizio Di Bonito5, Gerardo Botti5. 1. Radiology Unit, "Dipartimento di supporto ai percorsi oncologici area diagnostica, Istituto Nazionale Tumori - IRCCS - Fondazione G. Pascale", Via Mariano Semmola, Naples, Italy. 2. Radiology Unit, "Dipartimento di supporto ai percorsi oncologici area diagnostica, Istituto Nazionale Tumori - IRCCS - Fondazione G. Pascale", Via Mariano Semmola, Naples, Italy. r.fusco@istitutotumori.na.it. 3. Department of Electrical Engineering and Information Technologies, "Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II", Via Claudio, Naples, Italy. 4. Senology Surgery Unit, "Dipartimento Corp-S assistenziale e di ricerca dei percorsi oncologici del distretto toracico, Istituto Nazionale Tumori - IRCCS - Fondazione G. Pascale", Via Mariano Semmola, Naples, Italy. 5. Pathology Unit, "Dipartimento di supporto ai percorsi oncologici area diagnostica, Istituto Nazionale Tumori - IRCCS - Fondazione G. Pascale", Via Mariano Semmola, Naples, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the performance of an abbreviated dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging (MRI) protocol for breast cancer detection; a comparison with the complete diagnostic protocol has been conducted. METHODS: A retrospective analysis on 508 patients was performed. Abbreviated protocol (AP) included one pre-contrast and the first post-contrast T1-weighted series. Complete protocol (CP) consisted of four post-contrast and one pre-contrast T1-weighted series. Diagnostic performance was assessed for AP and CP. Performance comparison was made using McNemar's test for sensitivity and specificity and Moskowitz and Pepe's method as regards negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV). AP has been realized in two different ways (AP1 and AP2) and they were compared by means of Cohen's κ. RESULTS: Both CP and AP revealed 206 of 207 cancers. There were no statistically significant differences between AP and CP diagnostic performance (P > 0.05). NPVs of CP and both versions of AP (99.57 vs. 99.56%, P = 0.39), as well as the specificity (77.08 vs. 75.42%, P = 0.18), were substantially equivalent. Relative predictive value method did not reveal the presence of a statistically significant difference between the PPV of CP and both versions of AP (74.91 vs. 73.57%, P = 0.099). Analysis for single lesion confirmed that both CP and AP had equivalent results: CP and AP revealed 280 of 281 malignancies. NPVs of CP and both AP versions, as well as the specificity (P > 0.05), were substantially equivalent. Relative predictive value method did not reveal the presence of a significant difference between the PPV of CP and both AP versions (70.89 vs. 70.18%, P = 0.25; 70.89 vs. 70.00%, P = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Abbreviated approach to breast MRI examination reduces the image acquisition and the reading time associated with MR substantially without influencing the diagnostic accuracy (high sensitivity and NPV >99.5%). AP could translate into cost-savings and could enable a higher number of examinations within the same MR session.
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the performance of an abbreviated dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging (MRI) protocol for breast cancer detection; a comparison with the complete diagnostic protocol has been conducted. METHODS: A retrospective analysis on 508 patients was performed. Abbreviated protocol (AP) included one pre-contrast and the first post-contrast T1-weighted series. Complete protocol (CP) consisted of four post-contrast and one pre-contrast T1-weighted series. Diagnostic performance was assessed for AP and CP. Performance comparison was made using McNemar's test for sensitivity and specificity and Moskowitz and Pepe's method as regards negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV). AP has been realized in two different ways (AP1 and AP2) and they were compared by means of Cohen's κ. RESULTS: Both CP and AP revealed 206 of 207 cancers. There were no statistically significant differences between AP and CP diagnostic performance (P > 0.05). NPVs of CP and both versions of AP (99.57 vs. 99.56%, P = 0.39), as well as the specificity (77.08 vs. 75.42%, P = 0.18), were substantially equivalent. Relative predictive value method did not reveal the presence of a statistically significant difference between the PPV of CP and both versions of AP (74.91 vs. 73.57%, P = 0.099). Analysis for single lesion confirmed that both CP and AP had equivalent results: CP and AP revealed 280 of 281 malignancies. NPVs of CP and both AP versions, as well as the specificity (P > 0.05), were substantially equivalent. Relative predictive value method did not reveal the presence of a significant difference between the PPV of CP and both AP versions (70.89 vs. 70.18%, P = 0.25; 70.89 vs. 70.00%, P = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Abbreviated approach to breast MRI examination reduces the image acquisition and the reading time associated with MR substantially without influencing the diagnostic accuracy (high sensitivity and NPV >99.5%). AP could translate into cost-savings and could enable a higher number of examinations within the same MR session.
Entities:
Keywords:
Abbreviated protocol; Breast cancer; Complete protocol; DCE-MRI
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: 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
Authors: Mi-Ri Kwon; Eun Young Ko; Boo-Kyung Han; Eun Sook Ko; Ji Soo Choi; Ko Woon Park Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 1.817