PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to compare dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) with apparent diffusion coefficient mapping as a stand-alone parameter without any other supportive sequence for breast cancer detection and to assess its combination as multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the breast. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved single-center study, prospectively acquired data of 106 patients who underwent breast MRI from 12/2010 to 09/2014 for an imaging abnormality (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 0, 4/5) were retrospectively analyzed. Four readers independently assessed DWI and DCE as well as combined as mpMRI. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System categories, lesion size, and mean apparent diffusion coefficient values were recorded. Histopathology was used as the gold standard. Appropriate statistical tests were used to compare diagnostic values. RESULTS: There were 69 malignant and 41 benign tumors in 106 patients. Four patients presented with bilateral lesions. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI was the most sensitive test for breast cancer detection, with an average sensitivity of 100%. Diffusion-weighted imaging alone was less sensitive (82%; P < 0.001) but more specific than DCE-MRI (86.8% vs 76.6%; P = 0.002). Diagnostic accuracy was 83.7% for DWI and 90.6% for DCE-MRI. Multiparametric MRI achieved a sensitivity of 96.8%, not statistically different from DCE-MRI (P = 0.12) and with a similar specificity as DWI (83.8%; P = 0.195), maximizing diagnostic accuracy to 91.9%. There was almost perfect interreader agreement for DWI (κ = 0.864) and DCE-MRI (κ = 0.875) for differentiation of benign and malignant lesions. CONCLUSION: Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI is most sensitive for breast cancer detection and thus still indispensable. Multiparametric MRI using DCE-MRI and DWI maintains a high sensitivity, increases specificity, and maximizes diagnostic accuracy, often preventing unnecessary breast biopsies. Diffusion-weighted imaging should not be used as a stand-alone parameter because it detects significantly fewer cancers in comparison with DCE-MRI and mpMRI.
PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to compare dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) with apparent diffusion coefficient mapping as a stand-alone parameter without any other supportive sequence for breast cancer detection and to assess its combination as multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the breast. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved single-center study, prospectively acquired data of 106 patients who underwent breast MRI from 12/2010 to 09/2014 for an imaging abnormality (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 0, 4/5) were retrospectively analyzed. Four readers independently assessed DWI and DCE as well as combined as mpMRI. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System categories, lesion size, and mean apparent diffusion coefficient values were recorded. Histopathology was used as the gold standard. Appropriate statistical tests were used to compare diagnostic values. RESULTS: There were 69 malignant and 41 benign tumors in 106 patients. Four patients presented with bilateral lesions. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI was the most sensitive test for breast cancer detection, with an average sensitivity of 100%. Diffusion-weighted imaging alone was less sensitive (82%; P < 0.001) but more specific than DCE-MRI (86.8% vs 76.6%; P = 0.002). Diagnostic accuracy was 83.7% for DWI and 90.6% for DCE-MRI. Multiparametric MRI achieved a sensitivity of 96.8%, not statistically different from DCE-MRI (P = 0.12) and with a similar specificity as DWI (83.8%; P = 0.195), maximizing diagnostic accuracy to 91.9%. There was almost perfect interreader agreement for DWI (κ = 0.864) and DCE-MRI (κ = 0.875) for differentiation of benign and malignant lesions. CONCLUSION: Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI is most sensitive for breast cancer detection and thus still indispensable. Multiparametric MRI using DCE-MRI and DWI maintains a high sensitivity, increases specificity, and maximizes diagnostic accuracy, often preventing unnecessary breast biopsies. Diffusion-weighted imaging should not be used as a stand-alone parameter because it detects significantly fewer cancers in comparison with DCE-MRI and mpMRI.
Authors: Wolfgang Bogner; Stephan Gruber; Katja Pinker; Günther Grabner; Andreas Stadlbauer; Michael Weber; Ewald Moser; Thomas H Helbich; Siegfried Trattnig Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-07-31 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Pascal A T Baltzer; Matthias Benndorf; Matthias Dietzel; Mieczyslaw Gajda; Oumar Camara; Werner A Kaiser Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-11-20 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Julia Krammer; Katja Pinker-Domenig; Mark E Robson; Mithat Gönen; Blanca Bernard-Davila; Elizabeth A Morris; Debra A Mangino; Maxine S Jochelson Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-03-25 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Wolfgang Bogner; Katja Pinker-Domenig; Hubert Bickel; Marek Chmelik; Michael Weber; Thomas H Helbich; Siegfried Trattnig; Stephan Gruber Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: P Belli; E Bufi; A Bonatesta; F Patrolecco; F Padovano; M Giuliani; P Rinaldi; L Bonomo Journal: Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 3.507
Authors: Gene Young Cho; Linda Moy; Sungheon G Kim; Steven H Baete; Melanie Moccaldi; James S Babb; Daniel K Sodickson; Eric E Sigmund Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-11-28 Impact factor: 5.315
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
Authors: Doris Leithner; Joao V Horvat; Blanca Bernard-Davila; Thomas H Helbich; R Elena Ochoa-Albiztegui; Danny F Martinez; Michelle Zhang; Sunitha B Thakur; Georg J Wengert; Anton Staudenherz; Maxine S Jochelson; Elizabeth A Morris; Pascal A T Baltzer; Paola Clauser; Panagiotis Kapetas; Katja Pinker Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-06-13 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Isaac Daimiel Naranjo; Peter Gibbs; Jeffrey S Reiner; Roberto Lo Gullo; Caleb Sooknanan; Sunitha B Thakur; Maxine S Jochelson; Varadan Sevilimedu; Elizabeth A Morris; Pascal A T Baltzer; Thomas H Helbich; Katja Pinker Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-05-21