OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performance of breast MRI with abbreviated protocol (AB-MRI) and full ddiagnostic protocol (FDP-MRI) for surveillance of females with a personal history of breast cancer. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we analyzed the outcomes of total 1312 post-operative screening breast MRI matched from 1045 AB-MRI and 677 FDP-MRI, which had histologic confirmation for suspicious MRI findings or 1 year negative follow-up images. This study was approved by the institutional review board and informed patient consent was waved. AB-MRI consists of T2 weighted scanning and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging including one pre-contrast and two post-contrast scans. We compared the diagnostic performance for recurrent breast cancer in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive-predictive value, negative-predictive value, and accuracy and area under the curve between the screening AB-MRI and FDP-MRI. RESULTS: Overall, 13 recurrent tumors among 1312 post-operative cases screened with breast MRI (1.0%) were detected including 8 invasive cancer, 2 cases of in situ cancer, and 3 cases of metastatic lymph nodes. The sensitivity and negative predictive value were 70 vs 100 and 99.5% vs 100% in AB-MRI and FDP-MRI. Specificity, positive predictive value, accuracy, and area under the curve of AB-MRI and FDP-MRI were 98.0% vs 96.9%, 35.0% vs 23.1%, 97.6% vs 97.0%, and 0.840 vs 0.985, respectively. CONCLUSION: The performance of AB-MRI was comparable to that of FDP-MRI in detecting recurrent breast cancer and decreased false positive cases. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: AB-MRI provides a reliable alternative with similar diagnostic performance and shorter MRI acquisition time.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic performance of breast MRI with abbreviated protocol (AB-MRI) and full ddiagnostic protocol (FDP-MRI) for surveillance of females with a personal history of breast cancer. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we analyzed the outcomes of total 1312 post-operative screening breast MRI matched from 1045 AB-MRI and 677 FDP-MRI, which had histologic confirmation for suspicious MRI findings or 1 year negative follow-up images. This study was approved by the institutional review board and informed patient consent was waved. AB-MRI consists of T2 weighted scanning and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging including one pre-contrast and two post-contrast scans. We compared the diagnostic performance for recurrent breast cancer in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive-predictive value, negative-predictive value, and accuracy and area under the curve between the screening AB-MRI and FDP-MRI. RESULTS: Overall, 13 recurrent tumors among 1312 post-operative cases screened with breast MRI (1.0%) were detected including 8 invasive cancer, 2 cases of in situ cancer, and 3 cases of metastatic lymph nodes. The sensitivity and negative predictive value were 70 vs 100 and 99.5% vs 100% in AB-MRI and FDP-MRI. Specificity, positive predictive value, accuracy, and area under the curve of AB-MRI and FDP-MRI were 98.0% vs 96.9%, 35.0% vs 23.1%, 97.6% vs 97.0%, and 0.840 vs 0.985, respectively. CONCLUSION: The performance of AB-MRI was comparable to that of FDP-MRI in detecting recurrent breast cancer and decreased false positive cases. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: AB-MRI provides a reliable alternative with similar diagnostic performance and shorter MRI acquisition time.
Authors: Antonella Petrillo; Roberta Fusco; Mario Sansone; Marilena Cerbone; Salvatore Filice; Annamaria Porto; Maria Rosaria Rubulotta; Massimiliano D'Aiuto; Franca Avino; Maurizio Di Bonito; Gerardo Botti Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-04-26 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Zheng Zhang; Daniel Lehrer; Roberta A Jong; Etta D Pisano; Richard G Barr; Marcela Böhm-Vélez; Mary C Mahoney; W Phil Evans; Linda H Larsen; Marilyn J Morton; Ellen B Mendelson; Dione M Farria; Jean B Cormack; Helga S Marques; Amanda Adams; Nolin M Yeh; Glenna Gabrielli Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-04-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: David V Schacht; Ken Yamaguchi; Jessica Lai; Kirti Kulkarni; Charlene A Sennett; Hiroyuki Abe Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Debra L Monticciolo; Mary S Newell; Linda Moy; Bethany Niell; Barbara Monsees; Edward A Sickles Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2018-01-19 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Susan C Harvey; Phillip A Di Carlo; Bonmyong Lee; Eniola Obadina; Dorothy Sippo; Lisa Mullen Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2015-10-27 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Karen J Wernli; Laura Ichikawa; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Susan D Brandzel; Mary Bush; Dianne Johnson; Louise M Henderson; Larissa Nekhlyudov; Tracy Onega; Brian L Sprague; Janie M Lee; Constance D Lehman; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-06-04 Impact factor: 29.146
Authors: Lyn I Jones; Andrea Marshall; Premkumar Elangovan; Rebecca Geach; Sadie McKeown-Keegan; Sarah Vinnicombe; Sam A Harding; Sian Taylor-Phillips; Mark Halling-Brown; Christopher Foy; Elizabeth O'Flynn; Hesam Ghiasvand; Claire Hulme; Janet A Dunn Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2022-07-30 Impact factor: 8.408