Fast and Noninvasive Characterization of Suspicious Lesions Detected at Breast Cancer X-Ray Screening: Capability of Diffusion-weighted MR Imaging with MIPs

被引:116
作者
Bickelhaupt, Sebastian [1 ]
Laun, Frederik B. [2 ]
Tesdorff, Jana [1 ]
Lederer, Wolfgang [3 ]
Daniel, Heidi [4 ]
Stieber, Anne [5 ]
Delorme, Stefan [1 ]
Schlemmer, Heinz-Peter [1 ]
机构
[1] German Canc Res Ctr, Dept Radiol, Heidelberg Neuenheimer Feld 280, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany
[2] German Canc Res Ctr, Dept Med Phys Radiol, Heidelberg Neuenheimer Feld 280, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany
[3] ATOS Clin Heidelberg, Radiol Clin, Heidelberg, Germany
[4] Radiol Ctr Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany
[5] Univ Heidelberg Hosp, Dept Clin & Intervent Radiol, Heidelberg, Germany
关键词
MAMMOGRAPHY; BENIGN; MORTALITY; BURDEN;
D O I
10.1148/radiol.2015150425
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
100231 [临床病理学]; 100902 [航空航天医学];
摘要
Purpose: To evaluate the ability of a diagnostic abbreviated magnetic resonance (MR) imaging protocol consisting of maximum intensity projections (MIPs) from diffusion-weighted imaging with background suppression (DWIBS) and unenhanced morphologic sequences to help predict the likelihood of malignancy on suspicious screening x-ray mammograms, as compared with an abbreviated contrast material-enhanced MR imaging protocol and a full diagnostic breast MR imaging protocol. Materials and Methods: This prospective institutional review board-approved study included 50 women (mean age, 57.1 years; range, 50-69 years), who gave informed consent and who had suspicious screening mammograms and an indication for biopsy, from September 2014 to January 2015. Before biopsy, full diagnostic contrast-enhanced MR imaging was performed that included DWIBS (b = 1500 sec/mm(2)). Two abbreviated protocols (APs) based on MIPs were evaluated regarding the potential to exclude malignancy: DWIBS (AP1) and subtraction images from the first postcontrast and the unenhanced series (AP2). Diagnostic indexes of both methods were examined by using the McNemar test and were compared with those of the full diagnostic protocol and histopathologic findings. Results: Twenty-four of 50 participants had a breast carcinoma. With AP1 (DWIBS), the sensitivity was 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73, 0.98), the specificity was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.77, 0.99), the negative predictive value (NPV) was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.75, 0.99), and the positive predictive value (PPV) was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.75, 0.99). The mean reading time was 29.7 seconds (range, 4.9-110.0 seconds) and was less than 3 seconds (range, 1.2-7.6 seconds) in the absence of suspicious findings on the DWIBS MIPs. With the AP2 protocol, the sensitivity was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.78, 0.95), the specificity was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.72, 0.97), the NPV was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.69, 0.95), the PPV was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.69, 0.97), and the mean reading time was 29.6 seconds (range, 6.0-100.0 seconds). Conclusion: Unenhanced diagnostic MR imaging (DWIBS mammography), with an NPV of 0.92 and an acquisition time of less than 7 minutes, could help exclude malignancy in women with suspicious x-ray screening mammograms. The method has the potential to reduce unnecessary invasive procedures and emotional distress for breast cancer screening participants if it is used as a complement after the regular screening clarification procedure. (C) RSNA, 2015
引用
收藏
页码:689 / 697
页数:9
相关论文
共 23 条
[1]
The Patient Burden of Screening Mammography Recall [J].
Alcusky, Matthew ;
Philpotts, Liane ;
Bonafede, Machaon ;
Clarke, Janice ;
Skoufalos, Alexandria .
JOURNAL OF WOMENS HEALTH, 2014, 23 :S11-S19
[2]
Breast cancer mortality in neighbouring European countries with different levels of screening but similar access to treatment: trend analysis of WHO mortality database [J].
Autier, Philippe ;
Boniol, Mathieu ;
Gavin, Anna ;
Vatten, Lars J. .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2011, 343
[3]
Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time [J].
Bernardi, D. ;
Ciatto, S. ;
Pellegrini, M. ;
Anesi, V. ;
Burlon, S. ;
Cauli, E. ;
Depaoli, M. ;
Larentis, L. ;
Malesani, V. ;
Targa, L. ;
Baldo, P. ;
Houssami, N. .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2012, 85 (1020) :E1174-E1178
[4]
Diffusion-Weighted MR Imaging of Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions Before and After Contrast Enhancement [J].
Janka, R. ;
Hammon, M. ;
Geppert, C. ;
Nothhelfer, A. ;
Uder, M. ;
Wenkel, E. .
ROFO-FORTSCHRITTE AUF DEM GEBIET DER RONTGENSTRAHLEN UND DER BILDGEBENDEN VERFAHREN, 2014, 186 (02) :130-135
[5]
The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of screening mammography and symptomatic status [J].
Kavanagh, AM ;
Giles, GG ;
Mitchell, H ;
Cawson, JN .
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCREENING, 2000, 7 (02) :105-110
[6]
Abbreviated Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI): First Postcontrast Subtracted Images and Maximum-Intensity Projection-A Novel Approach to Breast Cancer Screening With MRI [J].
Kuhl, Christiane K. ;
Schrading, Simone ;
Strobel, Kevin ;
Schild, Hans H. ;
Hilgers, Ralf-Dieter ;
Bieling, Heribert B. .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2014, 32 (22) :2304-U176
[7]
Kuhl Christiane K, 2006, Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am, V14, P391, DOI 10.1016/j.mric.2006.07.003
[8]
Implications of statistical power for confidence intervals [J].
Liu, Xiaofeng Steven .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL & STATISTICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2012, 65 (03) :427-437
[9]
Mammographie K., 2014, EV REP 2010 RES MAMM
[10]
European Breast Cancer Service Screening Outcomes: A First Balance Sheet of the Benefits and Harms [J].
Paci, Eugenio ;
Broeders, Mireille ;
Hofvind, Solveig ;
Puliti, Donella ;
Duffy, Stephen William .
CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION, 2014, 23 (07) :1159-1163