Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast: Quantitative method for kinetic curve type assessment

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 193, Issue 4, 2009, Pages

  El Khouli, Riham H ^a,b,c   Macura, Katarzyna J ^b   Jacobs, Michael A ^b,d   Khalil, Tarek H ^c   Kamel, Ihab R ^b   Dwyer, Andrew ^a   Bluemke, David A ^a  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH   (United States)

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

^c Suez Canal University Faculty of Medicine   (Egypt)

^d JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Breast imaging; Contrast enhanced MRI; Dynamic MRI; Kinetic curve; Washout

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; BENIGN TUMOR; BREAST LESION; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; HUMAN; KAPPA STATISTICS; KINETICS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALIGNANT NEOPLASTIC DISEASE; MCNEMAR TEST; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RADIOLOGIST; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ADULT; AGED; ALGORITHMS; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONTRAST MEDIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 70349685003     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.09.2483     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Bluemke DA, Gatsonis CA, Chen MH, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy. JAMA 2004; 292:2735-2742 (Pubitemid 39628252)
2. Huang W, Fisher PR, Dulaimy K, Tudorica LA, O'Hea B, Button TM. Detection of breast malignancy: diagnostic MR protocol for improved specificity. Radiology 2004; 232:585-591 (Pubitemid 38971303)
3. 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 (Pubitemid 29161739)
4. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, et al. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:8469-8476 (Pubitemid 46260243)
5. Schnall MD, Blume J, Bluemke DA, et al. Diagnostic architectural and dynamic features at breast MR imaging: multicenter study. Radiology 2006; 238:42-53 (Pubitemid 43010579)
6. 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 (Pubitemid 32592160)
7. Macura KJ, Ouwerkerk R, Jacobs MA, Bluemke DA. Patterns of enhancement on breast MR images: interpretation and imaging pitfalls. RadioGraphics 2006; 26:1719-1734
8. Kinkel K, Helbich TH, Esserman LJ, et al. Dynamic high-spatial-resolution MR imaging of suspicious breast lesions: diagnostic criteria and interobserver variability. AJR 2000; 175:35-43 (Pubitemid 30415534)
9. Stoutjesdijk MJ, Futterer JJ, Boetes C, van Die LE, Jager G, Barentsz JO. Variability in the description of morphologic and contrast enhancement characteristics of breast lesions on magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 2005; 40:355-362 (Pubitemid 40734564)
10. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33:159-174
11. Hawass NE. Comparing the sensitivities and specificities of two diagnostic procedures performed on the same group of patients. Br J Radiol 1997; 70:360-366
12. Kuhl CK, Schild HH, Morakkabati N. Dynamic bilateral contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast: trade-off between spatial and temporal resolution. Radiology 2005; 236:789-800 (Pubitemid 41170839)