Dynamic high-spatial-resolution MR imaging of suspicious breast lesions: Diagnostic criteria and interobserver variability

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 175, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 35-43

  Kinkel, Karen ^a,b   Helbich, Thomas H ^a,c   Esserman, Laura J ^d   Barclay, John ^d   Schwerin, Ellen H ^a   Sickles, Edward A ^a   Hylton, Nola M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b GENEVA UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS   (Switzerland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONTRAST MEDIUM;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST LESION; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIODIAGNOSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY;

EID: 0034048529     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/ajr.175.1.1750035     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Gilles R, Guinebretiere JM, Lucidarme O, et al. Nonpalpable breast tumors: diagnosis with contrast-enhanced subtraction dynamic MR imaging [erratum appears in Radiology 1994;193:285]. Radiology 1994;191:625-631
2. Boetes C, Barentsz JO, Mus RD, et al. MR characterization of suspicious breast lesions with a gadolinium-enhanced turboFLASH subtraction technique. Radiology 1994;193:777-781
3. Fenlon HM, Phelan NC, O'Sullivan P, Tierney S, Gorey T, Ennis JT. Benign versus malignant breast disease: comparison of contrast-enhanced MR imaging and Tc-99m tetrofosmin scintimammography. Radiology 1997;205:214-220
4. Helbich TH, Becherer A, Trattnig S, et al. Differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: MR imaging versus Tc-99m sestamibi scintimammography. Radiology 1997;202:421-429
5. Hulka CA, Edmister WB, Smith BL, et al. Dynamic echo-planar imaging of the breast: experience in diagnosing breast carcinoma and correlation with tumor angiogenesis. Radiology 1997;205:837-842
6. Rubens D, Totterman S, Chacko AK, et al. Gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced chemical-shift MR imaging of the breast. AJR 1991;157:267-270
7. Nunes LW, Schnall MD, Orel SG, et al. Breast MR imaging: interpretation model. Radiology 1997;202:833-841
8. Nunes LW, Schnall MD, Siegelman ES, et al. Diagnostic performance characteristics of architectural features revealed by high spatial-resolution MR imaging of the breast. AJR 1997;169:409-415
9. Hochman MG, Orel SG, Powell CM, Schnall MD, Reynolds CA, White LN. Fibroadenomas: MR imaging appearances with radiologic-histopathologic correlation. Radiology 1997;204:123-124
10. Nunes LH, Schnall MD, Orel SG, et al. Correlation of lesion appearance and histopathologic findings for the nodes of a breast MR imaging interpolation model. RadioGraphs 1999;19:79-92
11. Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P. Klaschik S. Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 1999;211:101-110
12. Sherif H, Mahfouz AE, Oellinger H, et al. Peripheral washout sign on contrast-enhanced MR images of the breast. Radiology 1997;205:209-213
13. Breiman L, Friedman J, Olshen R, Stone C, Classification and regression. Wadsworth, CA: Pacific Grove, 1984
14. Grajski KA, Breiman L, Viana Di Prisco G, Freeman WJ. Classification of EEG spatial patterns with a tree-structured methodology: CART. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1986;33:1076-1086
15. Steinberg D, Colla P, CART: tree-structured non-parametric data analysis. San Diego: Salford Systems, 1995
16. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-174
17. Mussurakis S. Buckley DL, Drew PJ, et al. Dynamic MR imaging of the breast combined with analysis of contrast agent kinetics in the diferentiation of primary breast tumours. Clin Radiol 1997;52:516-526
18. Daniel BL, Yen YF, Glover GH, et al. Breast disease: dynamic spiral MR imaging. Radiology 1998;209:499-510
19. Gribbestad IS, Nilsen G, Fjosne HF., Kvinnsland S, Haugen OA, Rinck PA. Comparative signal intensity measurements in dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR mammography. J Magn Reson Imaging 1994;4:477-480
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 MKI of invasive breast cancer: assessment of three region-of-interest analysis methods. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1997;21:431-438
22. Kuhl CK, Biding HB, Lutterbey G, Sommer T, Keller E, Schild HH. Standardization and acceleration of quantitative analysis of dynamic MR mammographies via parametric images and automatized ROI definition [in German]. Rofo Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr 1996;164:475-482
23. Orel SG, Mendonca MH, Reynolds C, Schnall MD, Solin LJ, Sullivan DC. MR imaging of ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiology 1997;202:413-420
24. Gilles R, Zafrani B, Guinebretiere JM, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ: MR imaging-histopathologic correlation. Radiology 1995;196:415-419
25. Ernster VL, Barclay J, Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Henderson C. Incidence of and treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. JAMA 1996; 275:913-918
26. Ernster VL, Barclay J. Increases in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast in relation to mammography: a dilemma. Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997; 22:151-156
27. Boetes C, Strijk SP, Holland R, Barentsz JO, Van Der Sluis RF, Ruijs JH. False-negative MR imaging of malignant breast tumors. Eur Radiol 1997; 7:1231-1234
28. Orel SG. Differentiating benign from malignant enhancing lesions identitied at MR imaging of the breast: are time-signal intensity curves an accurate predictor? (editorial) Radiology 1999;211:5-7