Literature DB >> 32953609

The diagnostic value of MRI for architectural distortion categorized as BI-RADS category 3-4 by mammography.

Haibing Mei1, Jian Xu1, Gang Yao2, Ying Wang1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Architectural distortion is a common mammographic sign that can be benign or malignant. This study investigated the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for architectural distortions that were category 3-4 under the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) by mammography.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 219 pathologically confirmed lesions in 208 patients who had BI-RADS category 3-4 architectural distortion in mammography images. Two radiologists described and categorized the architectural distortion and assigned the BI-RADS categories to the corresponding lesions on MRI images. Using the postoperative pathological diagnosis as the gold standard, we performed receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis for the efficacy of mammography and MRI in differentiating patients with benign or malignant lesions.
RESULTS: Totally 151 benign lesions and 68 malignant lesions were confirmed. According to the full-field digital mammography (FFDM), 82 lesions were in BI-RADS category 3, 104 lesions in 4A, 29 lesions in 4B, and 4 lesions in 4C. The positive predictive values of FFDM for BI-RADS categories 3, 4A, 4B, and 4C were 13.4% (11/82), 27.9% (29/104), 82.8% (24/29), and 100.0% (4/4), respectively. According to MRI, 59 lesions were in BI-RADS categories 1-2, 87 lesions in 3, 39 lesions in 4, and 34 lesions in 5, with their positive predictive values being 0.0% (0/58), 2.3% (2/87), 89.7% (35/39), and 100.0% (34/34), respectively. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) of breast benign and malignant lesions differentiated by FFDM was 0.647, and the diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and Youden index were 86.3%, 41.7%, and 0.280, respectively. The AUC of FFDM combined with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) in differentiating breast benign vs. malignant lesions was 0.851, and the diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and Youden index were 89.2%, 80.7%, and 0.699, respectively. The AUC of FFDM combined with DCE-MRI and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in differentiating benign vs. malignant lesions was 0.983, and the diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and Youden index were 98.1%, 97.5%, and 0.956, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: MRI can improve the diagnostic efficiency of mammography in diagnosing BI-RADS category 3-4 architectural distortions and can help in the qualitative diagnosis of architectural distortion lesions. 2020 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Mammography; architectural distortion; magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)

Year:  2020        PMID: 32953609      PMCID: PMC7475343          DOI: 10.21037/gs-20-505

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gland Surg        ISSN: 2227-684X


  19 in total

1.  Reproducibility of mammographic classifications for non-palpable suspect lesions with microcalcifications.

Authors:  R M Pijnappel; P H M Peeters; J H C L Hendriks; W P Th M Mali
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Contribution of diffusion-weighted imaging to dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in the characterization of breast tumors.

Authors:  Sibel Kul; Aysegul Cansu; Etem Alhan; Hasan Dinc; Gurbuz Gunes; Abdulkadir Reis
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Image quality, lesion detection, and diagnostic efficacy in digital mammography: full-field digital mammography versus computed radiography-based mammography using digital storage phosphor plates.

Authors:  Gerd Schueller; Christopher C Riedl; Reinhold Mallek; Klemens Eibenberger; Herbert Langenberger; Elisabeth Kaindl; Christiane Kulinna-Cosentini; Margaretha Rudas; Thomas H Helbich
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2007-09-24       Impact factor: 3.528

4.  Assessment of breast lesions with diffusion-weighted MRI: comparing the use of different b values.

Authors:  Fernanda Philadelpho Arantes Pereira; Gabriela Martins; Eduardo Figueiredo; Marisa Nassar Aidar Domingues; Romeu Cortes Domingues; Lea Mirian Barbosa da Fonseca; Emerson Leandro Gasparetto
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 5.  Preoperative imaging for breast conservation surgery-do we need more than conventional imaging for local disease assessment?

Authors:  Eugene Ong
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2018-12

6.  Anatomical-radiological correlations: architectural distortions.

Authors:  B Boyer; E Russ
Journal:  Diagn Interv Imaging       Date:  2014-02-12       Impact factor: 4.026

7.  Diffusion-weighted imaging improves the diagnostic accuracy of conventional 3.0-T breast MR imaging.

Authors:  Riham H Ei Khouli; Michael A Jacobs; Sarah D Mezban; Peng Huang; Ihab R Kamel; Katarzyna J Macura; David A Bluemke
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Improved diagnostic accuracy of breast MRI through combined apparent diffusion coefficients and dynamic contrast-enhanced kinetics.

Authors:  S C Partridge; H Rahbar; R Murthy; X Chai; B F Kurland; W B DeMartini; C D Lehman
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2011-01-19       Impact factor: 4.668

9.  Diffusion-weighted MR imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS) for the diagnosis of malignant and benign breast lesions.

Authors:  Andreas Stadlbauer; Reinhard Bernt; Stephan Gruber; Wolfgang Bogner; Katja Pinker; Wilma van der Riet; Jörg Haller; Erich Salomonowitz
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-05-05       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 10.  Conclusions in systematic reviews of mammography for breast cancer screening and associations with review design and author characteristics.

Authors:  Smriti Raichand; Adam G Dunn; Mei-Sing Ong; Florence T Bourgeois; Enrico Coiera; Kenneth D Mandl
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2017-05-22
View more
  1 in total

1.  Visualization positioning-guided biopsy of suspicious breast microcalcifications: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Liulu Zhang; Minyi Cheng; Yuanqi Chen; Xiaosheng Zhuang; Ciqiu Yang; Fei Ji; Hongfei Gao; Mei Yang; Teng Zhu; Jieqing Li; Kun Wang
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2021-11
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.