High resolution MRI of the breast at 3 T: Which BI-RADS® descriptors are most strongly associated with the diagnosis of breast cancer?

European Radiology

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 322-330

  Pinker Domenig, K ^a   Bogner, W ^a   Gruber, S ^a   Bickel, H ^a   Duffy, S ^b   Schernthaner, M ^a   Dubsky, P ^a   Pluschnig, U ^a   Rudas, M ^a   Trattnig, S ^a   Helbich, T H ^a  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^b QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

3 Tesla; BI RADS ; Breast cancer; Lesion descriptors; MRI

Indexed keywords

GADOTERATE MEGLUMINE;

ADULT; AGE; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST METASTASIS; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER LOCALIZATION; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER SIZE; CARCINOMA IN SITU; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; FEMALE; HIGH RESOLUTION NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE PROCESSING; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDULLARY CARCINOMA; MUCINOUS CARCINOMA; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TISSUE STRUCTURE;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CONTRAST MEDIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; KINETICS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MEDICAL ONCOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84856599453     PISSN: 09387994     EISSN: 14321084     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-011-2256-6     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. TH Helbich 2000 Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breast Eur J Radiol 34 3 208 219 10927162 10.1016/S0720-048X(00)00200-X 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3cvnt1Sgtg%3D%3D (Pubitemid 30601694)
2. C Kuhl 2007 The current status of breast MR imaging - Part I. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice Radiology 244 2 356 378 17641361 10.1148/radiol.2442051620 (Pubitemid 47080868)
3. CK Kuhl 2007 Current status of breast MR imaging. Part 2. Clinical applications Radiology 244 3 672 691 17709824 10.1148/radiol.2443051661 (Pubitemid 47292079)
4. K Kinkel TH Helbich LJ Esserman, et al. 2000 Dynamic high-spatial- resolution MR imaging of suspicious breast lesions: diagnostic criteria and interobserver variability AJR Am J Roentgenol 175 1 35 43 10882243 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3czjvVSqsw%3D%3D (Pubitemid 30415534)
5. L Liberman EA Morris MJ Lee, et al. 2002 Breast lesions detected on MR imaging: features and positive predictive value AJR Am J Roentgenol 179 1 171 178 12076929 (Pubitemid 34694831)
6. TW Vomweg A Teifke WG Schreiber M Schmidt M Thelen 2002 Combination of low and high resolution T1-weighted sequences for improved evaluation of morphologic criteria in dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of the breast Rofo 174 11 1445 1449 12424673 10.1055/s-2002-35350 1:STN:280:DC%2BD38nmsVGhsg%3D%3D (Pubitemid 35415271)
7. K Pinker G Grabner W Bogner, et al. 2009 A combined high temporal and high spatial resolution 3 Tesla MR imaging protocol for the assessment of breast lesions: initial results Invest Radiol 44 9 553 558 19652611 10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181b4c127
8. CK Kuhl P Jost N Morakkabati O Zivanovic HH Schild J Gieseke 2006 Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast at 3.0 and 1.5 T in the same patients: initial experience Radiology 239 3 666 676 16549623 10.1148/radiol.2392050509 (Pubitemid 43830601)
9. CK Kuhl 2007 Breast MR imaging at 3T Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 15 3 315 320 17893052 10.1016/j.mric.2007.08.003 vi (Pubitemid 47430009)
10. IM Noebauer-Huhmann K Pinker M Barth, et al. 2006 Contrast-enhanced, high-resolution, susceptibility-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of the brain: dose-dependent optimization at 3 tesla and 1.5 tesla in healthy volunteers Invest Radiol 41 3 249 255 16481907 10.1097/01.rli.0000188360.24222. 5e (Pubitemid 44406185)
11. K Pinker A Ba-Ssalamah S Wolfsberger V Mlynarik E Knosp S Trattnig 2005 The value of high-field MRI (3 T) in the assessment of sellar lesions Eur J Radiol 54 3 327 334 15899332 10.1016/j.ejrad.2004.08.006 1:STN:280: DC%2BD2M3lvVOntg%3D%3D (Pubitemid 40719722)
12. A Ba-Ssalamah IM Nobauer-Huhmann K Pinker, et al. 2003 Effect of contrast dose and field strength in the magnetic resonance detection of brain metastases Invest Radiol 38 7 415 422 12821855 (Pubitemid 36791335)
13. AC Schmitz NH Peters WB Veldhuis, et al. 2008 Contrast-enhanced 3.0-T breast MRI for characterization of breast lesions: increased specificity by using vascular maps Eur Radiol 18 2 355 364 17882425 10.1007/s00330-007-0766-z 1:STN:280:DC%2BD1c%2FotlWiuw%3D%3D (Pubitemid 351234057)
14. RM Mann CK Kuhl K Kinkel C Boetes 2008 Breast MRI: guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging Eur Radiol 18 7 1307 1318 18389253 10.1007/s00330-008-0863-7 1:STN:280:DC%2BD1czovFalsg%3D%3D
15. H Elsamaloty MS Elzawawi S Mohammad N Herial 2009 Increasing accuracy of detection of breast cancer with 3-T MRI AJR Am J Roentgenol 192 4 1142 1148 19304726 10.2214/AJR.08.1226
16. Radiology RVACo (2003) American College of Radiology (ACR). Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System (BI-RADS). (4th ed.)
17. WB Demartini BF Kurland RL Gutierrez CC Blackmore S Peacock CD Lehman 2011 Probability of malignancy for lesions detected on breast MRI: a predictive model incorporating BI-RADS imaging features and patient characteristics Eur Radiol 21 8 1609 1617 21359910 10.1007/s00330-011-2094-6
18. RL Gutierrez WB DeMartini PR Eby BF Kurland S Peacock CD Lehman 2009 BI-RADS lesion characteristics predict likelihood of malignancy in breast MRI for masses but not for nonmasslike enhancement AJR Am J Roentgenol 193 4 994 1000 19770321 10.2214/AJR.08.1983
19. MD Schnall J Blume DA Bluemke, et al. 2006 Diagnostic architectural and dynamic features at breast MR imaging: multicenter study Radiology 238 1 42 53 16373758 10.1148/radiol.2381042117 (Pubitemid 43010579)
20. DHC Collins TM Peters AC Evans 1995 Automatic 3-D model-based neuroanatomical segmentation Hum Brain Mapp 3 3 190 208 10.1002/hbm.460030304 (Pubitemid 3036541)
21. EA Morris 2001 Illustrated breast MR lexicon Semin Roentgenol 36 3 238 249 11475070 10.1053/sroe.2001.25116 1:STN:280:DC%2BD38%2FisFWksA%3D%3D (Pubitemid 32701399)
22. EA Morris 2001 Review of breast MRI: indications and limitations Semin Roentgenol 36 3 226 237 11475069 10.1053/sroe.2001.25123 1:STN:280: DC%2BD38%2FisFWksw%3D%3D (Pubitemid 32701398)
23. CK Kuhl P Mielcareck S Klaschik, et al. 1999 Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 211 1 101 110 10189459 1:STN:280: DyaK1M3gsFCmtQ%3D%3D (Pubitemid 29161739)
24. LW Nunes MD Schnall SG Orel 2001 Update of breast MR imaging architectural interpretation model Radiology 219 2 484 494 11323476 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3M3mt1eitw%3D%3D (Pubitemid 32336366)
25. LW Nunes MD Schnall SG Orel, et al. 1997 Breast MR imaging: interpretation model Radiology 202 3 833 841 9051042 1:STN:280: DyaK2s3gtlCksg%3D%3D (Pubitemid 27093463)
26. CK Kuhl HH Schild N Morakkabati 2005 Dynamic bilateral contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast: trade-off between spatial and temporal resolution Radiology 236 3 789 800 16118161 10.1148/radiol.2363040811 (Pubitemid 41170839)
27. G Agrawal MY Su O Nalcioglu SA Feig JH Chen 2009 Significance of breast lesion descriptors in the ACR BI-RADS MRI lexicon Cancer 115 7 1363 1380 19197974 10.1002/cncr.24156
28. AA Tardivon A Athanasiou F Thibault C El Khoury 2007 Breast imaging and reporting data system (BIRADS): magnetic resonance imaging Eur J Radiol 61 2 212 215 17145155 10.1016/j.ejrad.2006.08.036 (Pubitemid 46096699)
29. D Floery TH Helbich 2006 MRI-Guided percutaneous biopsy of breast lesions: materials, techniques, success rates, and management in patients with suspected radiologic-pathologic mismatch Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 14 3 411 425 17098182 10.1016/j.mric.2006.10.002 viii (Pubitemid 46053834)
30. G Schueller S Jaromi L Ponhold, et al. 2008 US-guided 14-gauge core-needle breast biopsy: results of a validation study in 1352 cases Radiology 248 2 406 413 18641246 10.1148/radiol.2482071994
31. A Kluttig P Trocchi A Heinig, et al. 2007 Reliability and validity of needle biopsy evaluation of breast-abnormalities using the B-categorization- design and objectives of the Diagnosis Optimisation Study (DIOS) BMC Cancer 7 100 17570833 10.1186/1471-2407-7-100 (Pubitemid 47225255)
32. Pathologists RCo (2001) NHS Cancer Screening Programes: Guidelinesfor non-operative diagnostic procedures and reporting in breast cancer screening(ed)^(eds). NSHBSP publication, Sheffield
33. Pathology EWGoBS (2006) Quality assurance guidelines for pathologyEuropean guidelines for quality assurance in cancer screening and diagnosis, 4th edn. European Union, pp 219-312
34. RL Gutierrez WB Demartini P Eby BF Kurland S Peacock CD Lehman 2009 Clinical indication and patient age predict likelihood of malignancy in suspicious breast MRI lesions Acad Radiol 16 10 1281 1285 19733804 10.1016/j.acra.2009.04.012
35. PA Baltzer M Benndorf M Dietzel M Gajda IB Runnebaum WA Kaiser 2010 False-positive findings at contrast-enhanced breast MRI: a BI-RADS descriptor study AJR Am J Roentgenol 194 6 1658 1663 20489110 10.2214/AJR.09.3486
36. L Liberman G Mason EA Morris DD Dershaw 2006 Does size matter? Positive predictive value of MRI-detected breast lesions as a function of lesion size AJR Am J Roentgenol 186 2 426 430 16423948 10.2214/AJR.04.1707 (Pubitemid 46100312)
37. LC Wang WB DeMartini SC Partridge S Peacock CD Lehman 2009 MRI-detected suspicious breast lesions: predictive values of kinetic features measured by computer-aided evaluation AJR Am J Roentgenol 193 3 826 831 19696298 10.2214/AJR.08.1335
38. C Boetes J Veltman L van Die P Bult T Wobbes JO Barentsz 2004 The role of MRI in invasive lobular carcinoma Breast Cancer Res Treat 86 1 31 37 15218359 10.1023/B:BREA.0000032921.10481.dc (Pubitemid 38918896)
39. CK Kuhl 2009 Why do purely intraductal cancers enhance on breast MR images? Radiology 253 2 281 283 19864520 10.1148/radiol.2532091401
40. M Goto H Ito K Akazawa, et al. 2007 Diagnosis of breast tumors by contrast-enhanced MR imaging: comparison between the diagnostic performance of dynamic enhancement patterns and morphologic features J Magn Reson Imaging 25 1 104 112 17152054 10.1002/jmri.20812 (Pubitemid 46095205)
41. Pinker K, Stadlbauer A, Bogner W, Gruber S, Helbich TH (2010) Molecular imaging of cancer: MR spectroscopy and beyond. Eur J Radiol
42. WPK Bogner S Gruber G Grabner A Stadlbauer M Weber E Moser TH Helbich S Trattnig 2009 Diffusion-weighted MRI for differentiation of breast lesions at 3.0 Tesla: How does selection of diffusion schemes affect diagnosis? Radiology 253 2 341 351 19703869 10.1148/radiol.2532081718
43. K Pinker P Brader G Karanikas, et al. 2010 Functional and molecular imaging of breast tumors Radiologe 50 11 1030 1038 20842342 10.1007/s00117-010- 2014-9 1:STN:280:DC%2BC3M%2Fgt1Chsw%3D%3D
44. Gruber S., Debski B, Pinker K, et al. Three dimensional proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (3D-MRSI) for differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions at 3 Tesla. Radiology
45. CK Kuhl S Schrading HB Bieling, et al. 2007 MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study Lancet 370 9586 485 492 17693177 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61232-X (Pubitemid 47214635)
46. F Diekmann S Diekmann M Beljavskaja, et al. 2004 Preoperative MRT of the breast in invasive lobular carcinoma in comparison with invasive ductal carcinoma Rofo 176 4 544 549 15088179 10.1055/s-2004-813011 1:STN:280: DC%2BD2c7pt1WjtQ%3D%3D (Pubitemid 38724248)
47. M Dietzel PA Baltzer T Vag, et al. 2010 Magnetic resonance mammography of invasive lobular versus ductal carcinoma: systematic comparison of 811 patients reveals high diagnostic accuracy irrespective of typing J Comput Assist Tomogr 34 4 587 595 20657229 10.1097/RCT.0b013e3181db9f0e