OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the potential of noncontrast magnetic resonance imaging (NC-MRI) with diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in characterization of breast lesions in comparison to dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) at 3 T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients with conventional imaging (mammography, ultrasound) BI-RADS 4/5 findings were included in this institutional review board-approved single-center study. All underwent 3 T breast MRI including readout-segmented DWI, DCE, and T2-weighted sequences. Final diagnosis was defined by histopathology or follow-up (>24 months). Two experienced radiologists (R1, R2) independently assigned lesion conspicuity (0 = minimal to 3 = excellent) and BI-RADS scores to NC-MRI (readout-segmented DWI including apparent diffusion coefficient maps) and DCE-MRI (DCE and T2-weighted). Receiver operating characteristics, κ statistics, and visual grading characteristics analysis were applied. RESULTS: Sixty-seven malignant and 56 benign lesions were identified in 113 patients (mean age, 54 ± 14 years). Areas under the receiver operating characteristics curves were similar: DCE-MRI: 0.901 (R1), 0.905 (R2); NC-MRI: 0.882 (R1), 0.854 (R2); P > 0.05, respectively. The κ agreement was 0.968 (DCE-MRI) and 0.893 (NC-MRI). Visual grading characteristics analysis revealed superior lesion conspicuity by DCE-MRI (0.661, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic performance and interreader agreement of both NC-MRI and DCE-MRI is high, indicating a potential use of NC-MRI as an alternative to DCE-MRI. However, inferior lesion conspicuity and lower interreader agreement of NC-MRI need to be considered.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the potential of noncontrast magnetic resonance imaging (NC-MRI) with diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in characterization of breast lesions in comparison to dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) at 3 T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients with conventional imaging (mammography, ultrasound) BI-RADS 4/5 findings were included in this institutional review board-approved single-center study. All underwent 3 T breast MRI including readout-segmented DWI, DCE, and T2-weighted sequences. Final diagnosis was defined by histopathology or follow-up (>24 months). Two experienced radiologists (R1, R2) independently assigned lesion conspicuity (0 = minimal to 3 = excellent) and BI-RADS scores to NC-MRI (readout-segmented DWI including apparent diffusion coefficient maps) and DCE-MRI (DCE and T2-weighted). Receiver operating characteristics, κ statistics, and visual grading characteristics analysis were applied. RESULTS: Sixty-seven malignant and 56 benign lesions were identified in 113 patients (mean age, 54 ± 14 years). Areas under the receiver operating characteristics curves were similar: DCE-MRI: 0.901 (R1), 0.905 (R2); NC-MRI: 0.882 (R1), 0.854 (R2); P > 0.05, respectively. The κ agreement was 0.968 (DCE-MRI) and 0.893 (NC-MRI). Visual grading characteristics analysis revealed superior lesion conspicuity by DCE-MRI (0.661, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic performance and interreader agreement of both NC-MRI and DCE-MRI is high, indicating a potential use of NC-MRI as an alternative to DCE-MRI. However, inferior lesion conspicuity and lower interreader agreement of NC-MRI need to be considered.
Authors: Pascal Andreas Thomas Baltzer; Christian Freiberg; Sebastian Beger; Tibor Vag; Matthias Dietzel; Aimee B Herzog; Mieczyslaw Gajda; Oumar Camara; Werner A Kaiser Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2009-06-11 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Savannah C Partridge; Wendy B DeMartini; Brenda F Kurland; Peter R Eby; Steven W White; Constance D Lehman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: K Pinker; H Bickel; T H Helbich; S Gruber; P Dubsky; U Pluschnig; M Rudas; Z Bago-Horvath; M Weber; S Trattnig; W Bogner Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-03-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Yuri Errante; Vincenzo Cirimele; Carlo Augusto Mallio; Vincenzo Di Lazzaro; Bruno Beomonte Zobel; Carlo Cosimo Quattrocchi Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Katja Pinker; Linda Moy; Elizabeth J Sutton; Ritse M Mann; Michael Weber; Sunitha B Thakur; Maxine S Jochelson; Zsuzsanna Bago-Horvath; Elizabeth A Morris; Pascal At Baltzer; Thomas H Helbich Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: K Deike-Hofmann; T Kuder; F König; D Paech; C Dreher; S Delorme; H-P Schlemmer; S Bickelhaupt Journal: Radiologe Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 0.635
Authors: Paola Clauser; Barbara Krug; Hubert Bickel; Matthias Dietzel; Katja Pinker; Victor-Frederic Neuhaus; Maria Adele Marino; Marco Moschetta; Nicoletta Troiano; Thomas H Helbich; Pascal A T Baltzer Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2021-01-14 Impact factor: 12.531
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