PURPOSE: The aim of our prospective study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of MR mammography (MRM) in detecting malignant disease. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 231 consecutive patients scheduled for surgery because of mammographic or palpable lesions suspected of malignancy, the breasts were examined with T1-weighted transversal images using a 3-D fast low angle shot (FLASH) sequence. One pre- and 2 post-contrast images were obtained. Histological examination of the surgical specimens showed carcinoma in 155 breasts, of which 138 were invasive and 17 in situ. RESULTS: MRM detected 144 of the 155 malignancies and was false-negative in 11 cases. Eight of these MRM-missed tumours were invasive and 3 were in situ cancers. Benign lesions were found at microscopy in 95 breasts, of which MRM correctly diagnosed 69. The cellular composition of the 26 false-positive lesions (myxomatous stromal change, high vascularity, and epithelial or apocrine hyperplasia) might explain the false positivity. The sensitivity and specificity of MRM were 93% and 73% respectively. CONCLUSION: MRM should be interpreted with caution, and supplemented with e.g. mammography and ultrasonography.
PURPOSE: The aim of our prospective study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of MR mammography (MRM) in detecting malignant disease. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 231 consecutive patients scheduled for surgery because of mammographic or palpable lesions suspected of malignancy, the breasts were examined with T1-weighted transversal images using a 3-D fast low angle shot (FLASH) sequence. One pre- and 2 post-contrast images were obtained. Histological examination of the surgical specimens showed carcinoma in 155 breasts, of which 138 were invasive and 17 in situ. RESULTS: MRM detected 144 of the 155 malignancies and was false-negative in 11 cases. Eight of these MRM-missed tumours were invasive and 3 were in situ cancers. Benign lesions were found at microscopy in 95 breasts, of which MRM correctly diagnosed 69. The cellular composition of the 26 false-positive lesions (myxomatous stromal change, high vascularity, and epithelial or apocrine hyperplasia) might explain the false positivity. The sensitivity and specificity of MRM were 93% and 73% respectively. CONCLUSION: MRM should be interpreted with caution, and supplemented with e.g. mammography and ultrasonography.
Authors: Tibor Vag; Pascal A T Baltzer; Matthias Dietzel; Ramy Zoubi; Mieczyslaw Gajda; Oumar Camara; Werner A Kaiser Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-11-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: A C Schmitz; N H G M Peters; W B Veldhuis; A M Fernandez Gallardo; P J van Diest; G Stapper; R van Hillegersberg; W P Th M Mali; M A A J van den Bosch Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2007-09-20 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: F Sardanelli; L Bacigalupo; L Carbonaro; A Esseridou; G M Giuseppetti; P Panizza; V Lattanzio; A Del Maschio Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2008-07-09 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Pascal A T Baltzer; Tibor Vag; Matthias Dietzel; Sebastian Beger; Christian Freiberg; Mieczyslaw Gajda; Oumar Camara; Werner A Kaiser Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-03-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Hye Young Choi; Sun Mi Kim; Mijung Jang; Bo La Yun; Sung-Won Kim; Eunyoung Kang; So Yeon Park; Woo Kyung Moon; Eun Sook Ko Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2013-02-22 Impact factor: 3.500