Diagnostic architectural and dynamic features at breast MR imaging: Multicenter study

Radiology

Volumn 238, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 42-53

  Schnall, Mitchell D ^a   Blume, Jeffrey ^b   Bluemke, David A ^c   DeAngelis, Gia A ^d   DeBruhl, Nanette ^e   Harms, Steven ^f   Heywang Köbrunner, Sylvia H ^g   Hylton, Nola ^h   Kuhl, Christiane K ⁱ   Pisano, Etta D ^j   Causer, Petrina ^k   Schnitt, Stuart J ^l   Thickman, David ^m   Stelling, Carol B ⁿ   Weatherall, Paul T ^o   Lehman, Constance ^p   Gatsonis, Constantine A ^b  

^a HOSPITAL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES   (United States)

^g TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^h UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF BONN   (Germany)

^j UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^k UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^l HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^m Radiology Imaging Associates   (United States)

ⁿ UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^o UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^p UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GADODIAMIDE; GADOLINIUM PENTETATE; GADOTERIDOL;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MULTICENTER STUDY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ALGORITHMS; BAYES THEOREM; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CONTRAST MEDIA; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MIDDLE AGED; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 29444442413     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2381042117     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. 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.
2. Bone B, Pentek Z, Perbeck L, Veress B. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography and contrast-enhanced MR imaging in 238 histologically verified breast lesions. Acta Radiol 1997;38:489-496.
3. Kuhl CK, Schmutzler R, Leutner CC, et al. Breast MR imaging screening in 192 women proved or suspected to be carriers of a breast cancer susceptibility gene: preliminary results. Radiology 2000;215:267-279.
4. Gilles R, Guinebretiere JM, Lucidarme O, et al. Nonpalpable breast tumors: diagnosis with contrast-enhanced subtraction dynamic MR imaging. Radiology 1994;191:625-631.
5. Heywang SH, Wolf A, Pruss E, et al. MR imaging of the breast with Gd-DTPA: use and limitations. Radiology 1989;171:95-103.
6. Perman WH, Heiberg EM, Grunz J, et al. A fast 3D-imaging technique for performing dynamic Gd-enhanced MRI of breast lesions. Magn Reson Imaging 1994;12:545-551.
7. 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. J Magn Reson Imaging 1996;6:743-752.
8. Fischer U, Kopka L, Brinck U, Korabiowska M, Schauer A, Grabbe E. Prognostic value of contrast-enhanced MR mammography in patients with breast cancer. Eur Radiol 1997;7:1002-1005.
9. Kaiser WA, Zeitler E. MR imaging of the breast: fast imaging sequences with and without Gd-DTPA-preliminary observations. Radiology 1989;170(3 pt 1):681-686.
10. Nunes LW, Schnall MD, Orel SG, et al. Breast MR imaging: interpretation model. Radiology 1997;202:833-841.
11. Boetes C, Barentz JO, Mus RD, et al. MR characterization of suspicious breast lesions with a gadolinium-enhanced TurboFLASH subtraction technique. Radiology 1994;193:777-781.
12. Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S, et al. Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 1999;211:101-110.
13. Hulka CA, Smith BL, Sgroi DC, et al. Benign and malignant breast lesions: differentiation with echo-planar MR imaging. Radiology 1993;197:33-38.
14. Schnall MD, Rosten S, Englander S, Orel SG, Nunes LW. A combined architectural and kinetic interpretation model for breast MR images. Acad Radiol 2001;8:591-597.
15. Szabo BK, Aspelin P, Wiberg MK, Bone B. Dynamic MR imaging of the breast: analysis of kinetic and morphologic diagnostic criteria. Acta Radiol 2003;44:379-386.
16. Wedegartner U, Bick U, Wortler K, Rummeny E, Bongartz G. Differentiation between benign and malignant findings on MR-mammography: usefulness of morphological criteria. Eur Radiol 2001;11:1643-1630.
17. Bluemke DA, Gatsonis CA, Chen MH, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy. JAMA 2004;292:2735-2742.
18. Ikeda DM. Progress report from the American College of Radiology Breast MR Imaging Lexicon Committee. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2001;9:295-302.
19. Tofts PS, Shuter B, Pope JM. Ni-DTPA doped agarose gel: a phantom material for Gd-DTPA enhancement measurements. Magn Reson Imaging 1993;11:125-133.
20. Liang KY, Zeger SL. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika 1986;73:13-22.
21. Karim R, Carey V. Splus GEE code from Statlib, 1992. http://lib.stat.cmv. edu/. Accessed November 1, 2005.
22. Breiman L, Friedman J, Olshen R, Stone C. Classification and regression trees. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth, 1984.
23. van Buuren S, Oudshoorn CGM. Multivariate imputation by chained equations: MICE V1.0 user's manual. Report PG/VGZ/00.038. Leiden, the Netherlands: TNO Prevention and Health, 2000.
24. Efron B. Estimating the error rate of a prediction rule: improvement on cross-validation. J Am Stat Assoc 1983;78:316-331.
25. Rubin DB. Multiple imputation after 18+ years. J Am Stat Assoc 1996;91:473-318.
26. Rubin DB, Schafer JL. Efficiently creating multiple imputations for incomplete multivariate data. ASA Proceedings of the Statistical Computing Section, 83-88. Alexandria, Va: ASA, 1990.
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, Mendonca MH, Reynolds C, Schnall MD, Solin LJ, Sullivan DC. MR imaging of ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiology 1997;202:413-420.
29. Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Bick U, Bradley WG Jr, et al. International investigation of breast MRI: results of a multicentre study (11 sites) concerning diagnostic parameters for contrast-enhanced MRI based on 519 histopathologically correlated lesions. Eur Radiol 2001;11:531-546.
30. Ikeda DM, Hylton NM, Kinkel K, et al. Development, standardization, and testing of a lexicon for reporting contrast-enhanced breast, magnetic resonance imaging studies. J Magn Reson Imaging 2001;13:889-895.
31. Penn AI, Kumar NA, Thompson SF, Schnall MD, Wand F, Gatsonis C. Preliminary performance analysis of breast MRI CAD system. In: Sonka M, Hanson KM, eds. Proceedings of SPIE: medical imaging 2001-image processing. Vol 4322. Bellingham, Wash: International Society for Optical Engineering, 2001;1944-1953.
32. Liberman L, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, Abramson AF, Tan LK. Ductal enhancement on MR imaging of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:519-525.
33. Hall FM, Storella JM, Silverstone DZ, et al. Nonpalpable breast lesions: recommendations for biopsy based on suspicion of carcinoma at mammography. Radiology 1988;167:353-358.
34. Collins LC, Connolly JL, Page DL, et al. Diagnostic agreement in the pathologic interpretation of image-guided breast core needle biopsies. Am J Surg Pathol 2004;28:126-131.