Literature DB >> 29072981

Effect of Background Parenchymal Enhancement on Breast MR Imaging Interpretive Performance in Community-based Practices.

Kimberly M Ray1, Karla Kerlikowske1, Iryna V Lobach1, Michael B Hofmann1, Heather I Greenwood1, Vignesh A Arasu1, Nola M Hylton1, Bonnie N Joe1.   

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate the effect of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging interpretive performance in a large multi-institutional cohort with independent analysis of screening and diagnostic MR studies. Materials and Methods Analysis of 3770 breast MR studies was conducted. Examinations were performed in 2958 women at six participating facilities in the San Francisco Bay Area from January 2010 to October 2012. Findings were recorded prospectively in the San Francisco Mammography Registry. Performance measures were compared between studies with low BPE (mild or minimal) and those with high BPE (moderate or marked) by using binomial tests of proportions. Results Of 1726 MR imaging studies in the screening group, 1301 were classified as having low BPE and 425 were classified as having high BPE (75% vs 25%, respectively; P < .001). Of 2044 MR imaging studies in the diagnostic group, 1443 were classified as having low BPE and 601 were classified as having high BPE (71% vs 29%, respectively; P < .001). For low versus high BPE groups at screening, abnormal interpretation rate was 157 of 1301 versus 111 of 424 (12% vs 26%, P < .001); biopsy recommendation rate was 85 of 1301 versus 54 of 424 (7% vs 13%, P < .001); and specificity was 89% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 87, 91) versus 75% (95% CI: 71, 80) (P = .01). For the low versus high BPE groups at diagnostic MR imaging, biopsy recommendation rate was 325 of 1443 versus 195 of 601 (23% vs 32%, P < .001); and specificity was 86% (95% CI: 84, 88) versus 75% (95% CI: 74, 82) (P < .001). There were no significant differences between studies with low versus high BPE in sensitivity for screening (76% [95% CI: 55, 91] vs 83% [95% CI: 52, 98]; P = .94) or diagnostic (93% [95% CI: 87, 97] vs 96% [95% CI: 87, 99]; P = .69) MR imaging, nor were there significant differences in cancer detection rate per 1000 patients between the low BPE versus high BPE groups for screening (15 per 1000 vs 24 per 1000, P = .30) or diagnostic (78 per 1000 vs 85 per 1000, P = .64) MR imaging. Conclusion Relative to MR studies with minimal or mild BPE, those with moderate or marked BPE were associated with higher abnormal interpretation and biopsy rates and lower specificity, with no difference in cancer detection rate. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29072981      PMCID: PMC5831266          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017170811

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  18 in total

1.  Impact of menopausal status on background parenchymal enhancement and fibroglandular tissue on breast MRI.

Authors:  Valencia King; Yajia Gu; Jennifer B Kaplan; Jennifer D Brooks; Malcolm C Pike; Elizabeth A Morris
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-07-04       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Effect of aromatase inhibitors on background parenchymal enhancement and amount of fibroglandular tissue at breast MR imaging.

Authors:  Valencia King; Shari B Goldfarb; Jennifer D Brooks; Janice S Sung; Benjamin F Nulsen; Jolanta E Jozefara; Malcolm C Pike; Maura N Dickler; Elizabeth A Morris
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-07-06       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Screening breast MR imaging: comparison of interpretation of baseline and annual follow-up studies.

Authors:  Gil Abramovici; Martha B Mainiero
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-02-01       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Breast cancers not detected at MRI: review of false-negative lesions.

Authors:  Akiko Shimauchi; Sanaz A Jansen; Hiroyuki Abe; Nora Jaskowiak; Robert A Schmidt; Gillian M Newstead
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women: breast tissue perfusion determined with MR imaging--initial observations.

Authors:  Jean-Paul Delille; Priscilla J Slanetz; Eren D Yeh; Daniel B Kopans; Elkan F Halpern; Leoncio Garrido
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Background parenchymal enhancement on baseline screening breast MRI: impact on biopsy rate and short-interval follow-up.

Authors:  Niamh M Hambly; Laura Liberman; D David Dershaw; Sandra Brennan; Elizabeth A Morris
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Clinical MR mammography: impact of hormonal status on background enhancement and diagnostic accuracy.

Authors:  P A Baltzer; M Dietzel; T Vag; H Burmeister; M Gajda; O Camara; S O Pfleiderer; W A Kaiser
Journal:  Rofo       Date:  2011-02-11

8.  Identifying women with dense breasts at high risk for interval cancer: a cohort study.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Weiwei Zhu; Anna N A Tosteson; Brian L Sprague; Jeffrey A Tice; Constance D Lehman; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2015-05-19       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Undetected malignancies of the breast: dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging at 1.0 T.

Authors:  Andrea Teifke; Alexander Hlawatsch; Thomas Beier; Toni Werner Vomweg; Simin Schadmand; Markus Schmidt; Hans-Anton Lehr; Manfred Thelen
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Background parenchymal enhancement at breast MR imaging: normal patterns, diagnostic challenges, and potential for false-positive and false-negative interpretation.

Authors:  Catherine S Giess; Eren D Yeh; Sughra Raza; Robyn L Birdwell
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2014 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.333

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Background parenchymal enhancement on breast MRI: A comprehensive review.

Authors:  Geraldine J Liao; Leah C Henze Bancroft; Roberta M Strigel; Rhea D Chitalia; Despina Kontos; Linda Moy; Savannah C Partridge; Habib Rahbar
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2019-04-19       Impact factor: 4.813

2.  Influence of Menstrual Cycle Timing on Screening Breast MRI Background Parenchymal Enhancement and Diagnostic Performance in Premenopausal Women.

Authors:  Brian N Dontchos; Habib Rahbar; Savannah C Partridge; Constance D Lehman; Wendy B DeMartini
Journal:  J Breast Imaging       Date:  2019-06-11

3.  Population-Based Assessment of the Association Between Magnetic Resonance Imaging Background Parenchymal Enhancement and Future Primary Breast Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Vignesh A Arasu; Diana L Miglioretti; Brian L Sprague; Nila H Alsheik; Diana S M Buist; Louise M Henderson; Sally D Herschorn; Janie M Lee; Tracy Onega; Garth H Rauscher; Karen J Wernli; Constance D Lehman; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2019-01-09       Impact factor: 50.717

4.  Diffusion tensor imaging for characterizing tumor microstructure and improving diagnostic performance on breast MRI: a prospective observational study.

Authors:  Jing Luo; Daniel S Hippe; Habib Rahbar; Sana Parsian; Mara H Rendi; Savannah C Partridge
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2019-09-04       Impact factor: 6.466

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.