Takayuki Yamada1, Yoshihide Kanemaki2, Satoko Okamoto2, Yasuo Nakajima3. 1. Department of Radiology, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, Yokohama City Seibu Hospital, 1197-1 Yasashicho, Asahi-Ward, Yokohama, Kanagawa, 241-0811, Japan. yamataka@marianna-u.ac.jp. 2. Department of Radiology, Breast and Imaging Center, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, 6-7-2 Mampukuji, Asao-Ward, Kawasaki, Kanagawa, 215-0004, Japan. 3. Department of Radiology, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, 2-16-1 Sugao, Miyamae-Ward, Kawasaki, Kanagawa, 216-8511, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the detectability of unenhanced abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) based on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and abbreviated postcontrast MRI for breast cancer. METHODS: The study population consisted of 87 patients undergoing breast MRI between December 2016 and March 2017 in a clinical setting. All breast MRIs were performed using a 1.5-T MRI scanner with a 16-channel breast radiofrequency coil. The abbreviated protocols based on DWI (AP1) and postcontrast MRI (AP2) were assessed independently by two radiologists. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed and the areas under the curves (AUCs) were compared between AP1 and AP2. RESULTS: The study included 87 patients with 89 breast cancer lesions ≤ 2 cm in diameter. The sensitivity/specificity for AP1 and AP2 for reader 1 was 89.9/97.6% and 95.5/90.6%, respectively, and those for reader 2 was 95.5/94.1% and 98.9/94.1%, respectively. The AUCs for AP1 and AP2 for reader 1 were 0.9629 and 0.9640 (p = 0.95), respectively, and those for reader 2 were 0.9755 and 0.9843 (p = 0.46), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The detectability of the unenhanced abbreviated protocol based on DWI would be comparable to that of abbreviated postcontrast MRI for breast cancer.
PURPOSE: To compare the detectability of unenhanced abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) based on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and abbreviated postcontrast MRI for breast cancer. METHODS: The study population consisted of 87 patients undergoing breast MRI between December 2016 and March 2017 in a clinical setting. All breast MRIs were performed using a 1.5-T MRI scanner with a 16-channel breast radiofrequency coil. The abbreviated protocols based on DWI (AP1) and postcontrast MRI (AP2) were assessed independently by two radiologists. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed and the areas under the curves (AUCs) were compared between AP1 and AP2. RESULTS: The study included 87 patients with 89 breast cancer lesions ≤ 2 cm in diameter. The sensitivity/specificity for AP1 and AP2 for reader 1 was 89.9/97.6% and 95.5/90.6%, respectively, and those for reader 2 was 95.5/94.1% and 98.9/94.1%, respectively. The AUCs for AP1 and AP2 for reader 1 were 0.9629 and 0.9640 (p = 0.95), respectively, and those for reader 2 were 0.9755 and 0.9843 (p = 0.46), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The detectability of the unenhanced abbreviated protocol based on DWI would be comparable to that of abbreviated postcontrast MRI for breast cancer.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast neoplasms; Detection; Diffusion-weighted image; Magnetic resonance imaging; Protocol
Authors: Yasuaki Sagara; Melissa Anne Mallory; Stephanie Wong; Fatih Aydogan; Stephen DeSantis; William T Barry; Mehra Golshan Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Marco Moschetta; Michele Telegrafo; Leonarda Rella; Amato Antonio Stabile Ianora; Giuseppe Angelelli Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Laura Heacock; Amy N Melsaether; Samantha L Heller; Yiming Gao; Kristine M Pysarenko; James S Babb; Sungheon G Kim; Linda Moy Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Mieke Kriege; Cecile T M Brekelmans; Carla Boetes; Peter E Besnard; Harmine M Zonderland; Inge Marie Obdeijn; Radu A Manoliu; Theo Kok; Hans Peterse; Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst; Sara H Muller; Sybren Meijer; Jan C Oosterwijk; Louk V A M Beex; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Harry J de Koning; Emiel J T Rutgers; Jan G M Klijn Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-07-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Fabian Tollens; Pascal A T Baltzer; Matthias Dietzel; Moritz L Schnitzer; Vincent Schwarze; Wolfgang G Kunz; Johann Rink; Johannes Rübenthaler; Matthias F Froelich; Stefan O Schönberg; Clemens G Kaiser Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-04-28 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Ashley M Mendez; Lauren K Fang; Claire H Meriwether; Summer J Batasin; Stéphane Loubrie; Ana E Rodríguez-Soto; Rebecca A Rakow-Penner Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-07-08 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Petra Mürtz; Mark Tsesarskiy; Alois M Sprinkart; Wolfgang Block; Oleksandr Savchenko; Julian A Luetkens; Ulrike Attenberger; Claus C Pieper Journal: Eur Radiol Exp Date: 2022-09-29