Positive and negative predictive values of BI-RADS®-MRI descriptors for focal breast masses

Magnetic Resonance in Medical Sciences

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 7-15

  Tozaki, Mitsuhiro ^a,b   Igarashi, Takao ^a   Fukuda, Kunihiko ^a  

^a JIKEI UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

^b KAMEDA MEDICAL CENTER   (Japan)

Author keywords

BI RADS ; Breast neoplasm; Interpretation; MR imaging

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BREAST DISEASE; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATHOLOGY; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST DISEASES; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS;

EID: 34848878037     PISSN: 13473182     EISSN: 18802206     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2463/mrms.5.7     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Kaiser WA, Zeitler E. MR imaging of the breast: fast imaging sequences with and without Gd-DTPA. Preliminary observations. Radiology 1989; 170:681-686.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Viehweg P, Heinig A, Kuchler C. Contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast: accuracy, value, controversies, solutions. Eur J Radiol 1997; 24:94-108.
5. Orel SG, Schnall MD. MR imaging of the breast for the detection, diagnosis, and staging of breast cancer. Radiology 2001; 220:13-30.
6. Sherif H, Mahfouz AE, Oellinger H, et al. Peripheral washout sign on contrast-enhanced MR images of the breast. Radiology 1997; 205:209-213.
7. 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.
8. Bluemke DA, Gatsonis CA, Chen MH, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy. JAMA 2004; 292:2735-2742.
9. Kinkel K, Helbich TH, Esserman LJ, et al. Dynamic high-spatial-resolution MR imaging of suspicious breast lesions: diagnostic criteria and interobserver variability. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 175:35-43.
10. 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.
11. Tozaki M, Igarashi T, Matsushima S, Fukuda K. High-spatial-resolution MR imaging of focal breast masses: interpretation model based on kinetic and morphological parameters. RadiatMed 2005; 23:43-50.
12. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system® (BI-RADS®), fourth ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003.
13. Tozaki M, Fukuda K. Supine MR mammography using VIBE with parallel acquisition technique for the planning of breast-conserving surgery: clinical feasibility. Breast 2006; 15:137-140.
14. Orel SG, Schnall MD, LiVolsi VA, Troupin RH. Suspicious breast lesions: MR imaging with radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 1994; 190:485-493.
15. Nunes LW, SchnallMD, Orel SG, et al. Breast MR imaging: interpretation model. Radiology 1997; 202:833-841.
16. Nunes LW, Schnall MD, Orel SG. Update of breast MR imaging architectural interpretation model. Radiology 2001; 219:484-494.
17. Kim SJ, Morris EA, Liberman L, et al. Observer variability and applicability of BI-RADS terminology for breast MR imaging: invasive carcinomas as focal masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 177: 551-557.
18. Liberman L, Morris EA, Lee MJ, et al. Breast lesions detected on MR imaging: features and positive predictive value. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179:171-178.
19. Rofsky NM, Lee VS, Laub G, et al. Abdominal MR imaging with a volumetric interpolated breathhold examination. Radiology 1999; 212:876-884.
20. Tozaki M. Interpretation of breast MRI: correlation of kinetic and morphological parameters with pathological findings. Magn Reson Med Sci 2004; 3:189-197.
21. Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, Dennis MA, Parker SH, Sisney GA. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology 1995; 196:123-134.
22. 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.
23. 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; 11:1645-1650.
24. Buadu LD, Murakami J, Murayama S, et al. Patterns of peripheral enhancement in breast masses: correlation of findings on contrast medium enhanced MRI with histologic features and tumor angiogenesis. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1997; 21: 421-430.
25. Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E. Breast carcinoma: effect of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging on the therapeutic approach. Radiology 1999; 213:881-888.
26. Kawashima M, Tamaki Y, Nonaka T, et al. MR imaging of mucinous carcinoma of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179:179-183.
27. Fischer DR, Wurdinger S, Boettcher J, Malich A, Kaiser WA. Further signs in the evaluation of magnetic resonance mammography: a retrospective study. Invest Radiol 2005; 40:430-435.
28. Hochman MG, Orel SG, Powell CM, Schnall MD, Reynolds CA, White LN. Fibroadenomas: MR imaging appearances with radiologic-histopathologic correlation. Radiology 1997; 204:123-129.