Naoko Mori1,2, Federico D Pineda1, Keiko Tsuchiya1,3, Shunji Mugikura2, Shoki Takahashi2, Gregory S Karczmar1, Hiroyuki Abe1. 1. 1 Department of Radiology, The University of Chicago, 5841 S Maryland Ave, MC 2026, Chicago, IL 60637. 2. 2 Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan. 3. 3 Department of Radiology, Shiga University of Medical Science, Shiga, Japan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to validate a kinetic assessment based on visually identified peak enhancement, which is routinely used in clinical practice, for differentiating benign from malignant lesions during fast dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2015 and December 2016, 90 consecutively registered patients with 105 breast lesions (40 benign, 65 malignant) underwent dynamic contrast-enhanced 1.5-T MRI that included one unenhanced and eight contrast-enhanced fast temporal resolution (10 seconds) whole-breast acquisitions. Histogram analysis was performed to measure the voxel-based enhancement of the entire lesion to obtain 90th, 75th, and 50th percentile values at each time point and to generate kinetic curves. Two observers selected visually identified peak enhancement within the lesions to generate the kinetic curves. The kinetic curves from histogram and visually identified peak enhancement analyses were fitted by means of an empiric mathematic model (EMM): ΔS(t) = A × (1 - e-αt), where A is the upper limit of signal intensity, e indicates the exponential function, and α (min-1) is the rate of increase in signal intensity. The initial slope of the kinetic curve (A × α) and the initial AUC (AUC30) were calculated. These parameters were compared between benign and malignant lesions, and results from visually identified peak enhancement analysis were compared with those from histogram analysis. RESULTS: Benign lesions were successfully differentiated from malignant lesions in both visually identified peak enhancement and histogram analyses (90th and 75th percentile values) on the basis of α, A × α, and AUC30 from the EMM. There was no significant difference in ROC AUC in these EMM parameters between visually identified peak enhancement and histogram analyses (p = 0.21). CONCLUSION: Kinetic assessment with visually identified peak enhancement was acceptable for differentiating benign from malignant lesions.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to validate a kinetic assessment based on visually identified peak enhancement, which is routinely used in clinical practice, for differentiating benign from malignant lesions during fast dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2015 and December 2016, 90 consecutively registered patients with 105 breast lesions (40 benign, 65 malignant) underwent dynamic contrast-enhanced 1.5-T MRI that included one unenhanced and eight contrast-enhanced fast temporal resolution (10 seconds) whole-breast acquisitions. Histogram analysis was performed to measure the voxel-based enhancement of the entire lesion to obtain 90th, 75th, and 50th percentile values at each time point and to generate kinetic curves. Two observers selected visually identified peak enhancement within the lesions to generate the kinetic curves. The kinetic curves from histogram and visually identified peak enhancement analyses were fitted by means of an empiric mathematic model (EMM): ΔS(t) = A × (1 - e-αt), where A is the upper limit of signal intensity, e indicates the exponential function, and α (min-1) is the rate of increase in signal intensity. The initial slope of the kinetic curve (A × α) and the initial AUC (AUC30) were calculated. These parameters were compared between benign and malignant lesions, and results from visually identified peak enhancement analysis were compared with those from histogram analysis. RESULTS: Benign lesions were successfully differentiated from malignant lesions in both visually identified peak enhancement and histogram analyses (90th and 75th percentile values) on the basis of α, A × α, and AUC30 from the EMM. There was no significant difference in ROC AUC in these EMM parameters between visually identified peak enhancement and histogram analyses (p = 0.21). CONCLUSION: Kinetic assessment with visually identified peak enhancement was acceptable for differentiating benign from malignant lesions.
Entities:
Keywords:
MRI; breast; cancer; fast dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI; kinetics
Authors: Akiko Shimauchi; Maryellen L Giger; Neha Bhooshan; Li Lan; Lorenzo L Pesce; John K Lee; Hiroyuki Abe; Gillian M Newstead Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-01-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sanaz A Jansen; Xiaobing Fan; Gregory S Karczmar; Hiroyuki Abe; Robert A Schmidt; Gillian M Newstead Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Xiaobing Fan; Milica Medved; Jonathan N River; Marta Zamora; Claire Corot; Philippe Robert; Philippe Bourrinet; Martin Lipton; Rita M Culp; Gregory S Karczmar Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Hersh Chandarana; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Thais C Mussi; Sooah Kim; Afshan A Ahmad; Sean D Raj; John McMenamy; Jonathan Melamed; James S Babb; Berthold Kiefer; Atilla P Kiraly Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ritse M Mann; Roel D Mus; Jan van Zelst; Christian Geppert; Nico Karssemeijer; Bram Platel Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Jennifer Xiao; Habib Rahbar; Daniel S Hippe; Mara H Rendi; Elizabeth U Parker; Neal Shekar; Michael Hirano; Kevin J Cheung; Savannah C Partridge Journal: NPJ Breast Cancer Date: 2021-04-16
Authors: Jeanine E Vasmel; Maureen L Groot Koerkamp; Stefano Mandija; Wouter B Veldhuis; Maaike R Moman; Martijn Froeling; Bas H M van der Velden; Ramona K Charaghvandi; Celien P H Vreuls; Paul J van Diest; A M Gijs van Leeuwen; Joost van Gorp; Marielle E P Philippens; Bram van Asselen; Jan J W Lagendijk; Helena M Verkooijen; H J G Desirée van den Bongard; Antonetta C Houweling Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-11-20