Dynamic breast MR imaging: Are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions?

Radiology

Volumn 211, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 101-110

  Kuhl, Christiane Katharina ^a   Mielcareck, Peter ^a   Klaschik, Sven ^a   Leutner, Claudia ^a   Wardelmann, Eva ^a   Gieseke, Jürgen ^b   Schild, Hans H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BONN   (Germany)

^b PHILIPS HEALTHCARE   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast neoplasms; Breast neoplasms, MR; Magnetic resonance (MR), flow studies

Indexed keywords

GADOLINIUM PENTETATE;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BENIGN TUMOR; BREAST LESION; CLASSIFICATION; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; HUMAN; INTRAVENOUS DRUG ADMINISTRATION; KINETICS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALIGNANT NEOPLASTIC DISEASE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TECHNIQUE;

EID: 0032958860     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiology.211.1.r99ap38101     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Orel SG, Schnall MD, Powell CM, et al. Staging of suspected breast cancer: effect of MR imaging and MR-guided biopsy. Radiology 1995; 196:115-122.
2. Orel SG, Schnall MD, LiVolsi VA, Troupin RH. Suspicious breast lesions: MR imaging with radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 1994; 190:485-493.
3. Harms SE, Flamig DP, Hesley KL, et al. MR imaging of the breast with rotating delivery of excitation off resonance: clinical experience with pathologic correlation. Radiology 1993; 187:493-501.
4. Harms SE, Flamig DP. MR imaging of the breast. JMRI 1993; 3:277-283.
5. Nunes LW, Schnall MD, Orel SG, et al. Breast MR imaging: interpretation model. Radiology 1997; 202:833-841.
6. Boetes C, Barentsz JO, Mus RD, et al. MR characterization of suspicious breast lesions with a gadolinium-enhanced Turbo-FLASH subtraction technique. Radiology 1994; 193:777-781.
7. Heywang SH. Contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breast. Invest Radiol 1994; 29:94-104.
8. Heywang SH, Wolf A, Pruss E, Hilbertz T, Eiermann W, Permanetter W. MR imaging of the breast with Gd-DTPA: use and limitations. Radiology 1989; 171:95-103.
9. Kaiser WA, Zeitler E. MR imaging of the breast: fast imaging sequences with and without Gd-DTPA - preliminary observations. Radiology 1989; 170:681-686.
10. Perman WH, Heiberg EM, Grunz J, Herrmann VM, Janney CG. A fast 3D-imaging technique for performing dynamic Gd-enhanced MRI of breast lesions. Magn Reson Imaging 1994; 12:545-551.
11. Fischer U, von Heyden D, Vosshenrich R, Vieweg I, Grabbe E. Signalverhalten maligner und benigner läsionen in der dynamischen 2D-MRT der mamma. ROFO 1993; 158:287-292
12. Heiberg EV, Perman WH, Herrmann VM, Janney CG. Dynamic sequential 3D gadolinium-enhanced MRI of the whole breast. Magn Reson Imaging 1996; 14:337-348.
13. Gribbestad IS, Nilsen G, Fjosne H, et al. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breast. Acta Oncol 1992; 31:833-842.
14. Flickinger FW, Allison JD, Sherry RM, Wright JC. Differentiation of benign from malignant breast masses by time-intensity evaluation of contrast enhanced MRI. Magn Reson Imaging 1993; 11:617-620.
15. Gilles R, Guinebretiere JM, Lucidarme O, et al. Nonpalpable breast tumors: diagnosis with contrast-enhanced subtraction dynamic MR imaging. Radiology 1994; 191:625-631.
16. Hulka CA, Smith BL, Sgroi DC, et al. Benign and malignant breast lesions: differentiation with echo-planar MR imaging. Radiology 1995; 197:33-38.
17. Kelcz F, Santyr GE, Cron GO, Mongin SJ. Application of a quantitative model to differentiate benign from malignant breast lesions detected by dynamic, gadolinium-enhanced MRI. JMRI 1996; 6:743-752.
18. Gribbestad IS, Nilsen G, Fjosne HE, Kvinnsland S, Haugen OA, Rinck PA. Comparative signal intensity measurements in dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR mammography. JMRI 1994; 4:477-480.
19. Revel D, Brasch RC, Paajanen H, et al. Gd-DTPA contrast enhancement and tissue differentiation in MR imaging of experimental breast carcinoma. Radiology 1986; 158:319-323.
20. Mussurakis S, Buckley DL, Coady AM, Turnbull LW, Horsman A. Observer variability in the interpretation of contrast enhanced MRI of the breast. Br J Radiol 1996; 69:1009-1016.
21. Mussurakis S, Buckley DL, Horsman A. Dynamic MRI of invasive breast cancer: assessment of three region-of-interest analysis methods. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1997; 21:431-438.
22. Kuhl C, Bieling H, Lutterbey G, Sommer T, Schild HH. Standardisierung und beschleunigung dynamischer MR-mammographien durch parameterbilder und automatische ROI-definition. ROFO 1996; 164:475-482.
23. Piccoli CW. The specificity of contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 1994; 2:557-571
24. Kuhl CK, Kreft BP, Bieling HB, et al. Dynamic breast MRI in premenopausal healthy volunteers: normal values of contrast enhancement and cycle phase dependency. Radiology 1997; 203:1-9.
25. Stack JP, Redmond OM, Codd MB, Dervan PA, Ennis JT. Breast disease: tissue characterization with Gd-DTPA enhancement profiles. Radiology 1990; 17:491-494.
26. Müller-Schimpfle M, Ohmenhauser K, Sand J, Stoll P, Claussen CD. Dynamic 3D-MR mammography: is there a benefit of sophisticated evaluation of enhancement curves for clinical routine? JMRI 1997; 7:236-240.
27. Fobben ES, Rubin CZ, Kalisher L, Dembner AG, Seltzer MH, Santoro EJ. Breast MR imaging with commercially available techniques: radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 1995; 196:143-152.
28. Kuhl CK, Mielcarek P, Schild HH. Sensitivity of 2D and 3D GRE sequences in dynamic breast MR imaging: systematic controlled study with intraindividual comparison (abstr). Radiology 1996; 201(P):130.
29. Frouge C, Guinebretiere JM, Contesso G, Di Paola R, Blery M. Correlation between contrast enhancement in dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of the breast and tumor angiogenesis. Invest Radiol 1994; 29:1043-1049.
30. Gilles R, Zafrani B, Guinebretiere JM, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ: MR imaging-histopathologic correlation. Radiology 1995; 196:415-419.
31. Buadu LD, MurakamiJ, Murayama S, et al. Breast lesions: correlation of contrast medium enhancement patterns on MR images with histopathologic findings and tumor angiogenesis. Radiology 1996; 200: 639-649.
32. Rubin JM, Carson PL, Zlotecki RA, Ensminger WD. Visualization of tumor vascularity in a rabbit VX2 carcinoma by Doppler flow mapping. J Ultrasound Med 1987; 6:113-120.
33. Lee WJ, Chu JS, Huang CS, Chang MF, Chang KJ, Chen KM. Breast cancer vascularity: color Doppler sonography and histopathology study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1996; 37:291-298.
34. Kedar RP, Cosgrove D, McCready VR, Bamber JC, Carter ER. Microbubble contrast agent for color Doppler US: effect on breast masses - work in progress. Radiology 1996; 198:679-686.
35. Baker JA, Kornguth PJ, Floyd CE Jr. Breast imaging reporting and data system standardized mammography lexicon: observer variability in lesion description. AJR 1996; 166:773-778.
36. Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists: findings from a national sample. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156:209-213.
37. Elmore JG, Wells CK, Lee CH, Howard DH, Feinstein AR. Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms. N Engl J Med 1994; 331:1493-1499.
38. Baines CJ, McFarlane DV, Miller AB. The role of the reference radiologist: estimates of inter-observer agreement and potential delay in cancer detection in the national breast screening study. Invest Radiol 1990; 25:971-976.
39. Tudor GR, Finlay D, Taub N. An assessment of inter-observer agreement and accuracy when reporting plain radiographs. Clin Radiol 1997; 52:235-238.