Improved diagnostic accuracy with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the breast using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging, and 3-dimensional proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 49, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 421-430

  Pinker, Katja ^a   Bogner, Wolfgang ^b   Baltzer, Pascal ^a   Gruber, Stephan ^b   Bickel, Hubert ^a   Brueck, Benedikt ^a   Trattnig, Siegfried ^b   Weber, Michael ^a   Dubsky, Peter ^a   Bago Horvath, Zsuzsanna ^a   Bartsch, Rupert ^a   Helbich, Thomas H ^a  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^b Center of Excellence   (Austria)

Author keywords

3D proton MR spectroscopic imaging; Breast cancer diagnosis; diffusion weighted imaging; dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging; multiparametric MRI

Indexed keywords

GADOTERATE MEGLUMINE; CONTRAST MEDIUM; MEGLUMINE; ORGANOMETALLIC COMPOUND;

ADULT; AGED; ANGIOGRAPHIC INJECTOR; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST CARCINOMA; CONTRAST ENHANCED MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTON NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VERY ELDERLY; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC USE; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; MIDDLE AGED; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; PROCEDURES; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CONTRAST MEDIA; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; DIFFUSION MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; MEGLUMINE; MIDDLE AGED; ORGANOMETALLIC COMPOUNDS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUALITY IMPROVEMENT;

EID: 84900475342     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: 15360210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000029     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46:1296-1316.
2. Kuhl CK. Breast MR imaging at 3T. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2007;15: 315-320.
3. Morris EA. Diagnostic breast MR imaging: current status and future directions. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2007;45:863-880.
4. Mercado CL, Moy L. Breast MRI. Preface. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2010;18(2):xiii. doi: 10.1016/j.mric.2010.02.014.
5. Pediconi F, Miglio E, Telesca M, et al. Effect of preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging on surgical decision making and cancer recurrence rates. Invest Radiol. 2012;47:128-135.
6. Pinker-Domenig K, Bogner W, Gruber S, et al. High resolution MRI of the breast at 3 T: which BI-RADS(R) descriptors are most strongly associated with the diagnosis of breast cancer? Eur Radiol. 2012;22:322-330.
7. 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.
8. Bogner W, Gruber S, Pinker K, et al. Diffusion-weighted MR for differentiation of breast lesions at 3.0 T: how does selection of diffusion protocols affect diagnosis? Radiology. 2009;253:341-351.
9. Ei Khouli RH, Jacobs MA, Mezban SD, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging improves the diagnostic accuracy of conventional 3.0-T breast MR imaging. Radiology. 2010;256:64-73.
10. Partridge SC, DeMartini WB, Kurland BF, et al. Quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging as an adjunct to conventional breast MRI for improved positive predictive value. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:1716-1722.
11. Kul S, Cansu A, Alhan E, et al. Contribution of diffusion-weighted imaging to dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in the characterization of breast tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:210-217.
12. Gruber S, Debski BK, Pinker K, et al. Three-dimensional proton MR spec-troscopic imaging at 3 T for the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions. Radiology. 2011;261:752-761.
13. Bartella L, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, et al. Proton MR spectroscopy with choline peak as malignancy marker improves positive predictive value for breast cancer diagnosis: preliminary study. Radiology. 2006;239:686-692.
14. Bogner W, Pinker-Domenig K, Bickel H, et al. Readout-segmented echo-planar imaging improves the diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted MR breast examinations at 3.0 T. Radiology. 2012;263:64-76.
15. Eyal E, Shapiro-Feinberg M, Furman-Haran E, et al. Parametric diffusion tensor imaging of the breast. Invest Radiol. 2012;47:284-291.
16. Woodhams R, Matsunaga K, Kan S, et al. ADC mapping of benign and malignant breast tumors. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2005;4:35-42.
17. Chen X, Li WL, Zhang YL, et al. Meta-analysis of quantitative diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the differential diagnosis of breast lesions. BMC Cancer. 2010;10:693.
18. Meisamy S, Bolan PJ, Baker EH, et al. Adding in vivo quantitative 1H MR spectroscopy to improve diagnostic accuracy of breast MR imaging: preliminary results of observer performance study at 4.0 T. Radiology. 2005;236: 465-475.
19. Sardanelli F, Fausto A, Di Leo G, et al. In vivo proton MR spectroscopy of the breast using the total choline peak integral as a marker of malignancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:1608-1617.
20. Baltzer PA, Dietzel M. Breast lesions: diagnosis by using proton mr spec-troscopy at 1.5 and 3.0 TVsystematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology. 2013;267:735-746.
21. Yabuuchi H, Matsuo Y, Okafuji T, et al. Enhanced mass on contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging: lesion characterization using combination of dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR images. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;28:1157-1165.
22. Yabuuchi H, Matsuo Y, Sunami S, et al. Detection of non-palpable breast cancer in asymptomatic women by using unenhanced diffusion-weighted and T2-weighted MR imaging: comparison with mammography and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Eur Radiol. 2011;21:11-17.
23. Pinker K, Grabner G, Bogner W, et al. A combined high temporal and high spatial resolution 3 Tesla MR imaging protocol for the assessment of breast lesions: initial results. Invest Radiol. 2009;44:553-558.
24. American College of Radiology (ACR). Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System (BI-RADS). Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003.
25. Tardivon AA, Athanasiou A, Thibault F, et al. Breast imaging and reporting data system (BIRADS): magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2007;61: 212-215.
26. 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.
27. Wallis M, Tardivon A, Helbich T, et al. Guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging for diagnostic interventional breast procedures. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:581-588.
28. Krishnamurthy S, Bevers T, Kuerer H, et al. Multidisciplinary considerations in the management of high-risk breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198: W132-W140.
29. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44:837-845.
30. Renz DM, Diekmann F, Schmitzberger FF, et al. Pharmacokinetic approach for dynamic breast MRI to indicate signal intensity time curves of benign and malignant lesions by using the tumor flow residence time. Invest Radiol. 2013;48:69-78.
31. Oliveira Neto JA, Parente DB. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2013;21:409-426.
32. Hedgire SS, Oei TN, McDermott S, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of prostate cancer. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2012;22:160-169.
33. Turkbey B, Mani H, Shah V, et al. Multiparametric 3T prostate magnetic resonance imaging to detect cancer: histopathological correlation using prostatectomy specimens processed in customized magnetic resonance imaging based molds. J Urol. 2011;186:1818-1824.
34. Franiel T, Stephan C, Erbersdobler A, et al. Areas suspicious for prostate cancer: MR-guided biopsy in patients with at least one transrectal US-guided biopsy with a negative findingVmultiparametric MR imaging for detection and biopsy planning. Radiology. 2011;259:162-172.
35. Bian W, Khayal IS, Lupo JM, et al. Multiparametric characterization of grade 2 glioma subtypes using magnetic resonance spectroscopic, perfusion, and diffusion imaging. Transl Oncol. 2009;2:271-280.
36. Roy B, Gupta RK, Maudsley AA, et al. Utility of multiparametric 3-T MRI for glioma characterization. Neuroradiology. 2013;55:603-613.
37. Pinker K, Stadlbauer A, Bogner W, et al. Molecular imaging of cancer: MR spectroscopy and beyond. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:566-577.
38. Kluttig A, Trocchi P, Heinig A, et al. Reliability and validity of needle biopsy evaluation of breast-abnormalities using the B-categorizationVdesign and objectives of the Diagnosis Optimisation Study (DIOS). BMC Cancer. 2007;7:100.
39. Bianchi S, Caini S, Renne G, et al. Positive predictive value for malignancy on surgical excision of breast lesions of uncertain malignant potential (B3) diagnosed by stereotactic vacuum-assisted needle core biopsy (VANCB): a large multi-institutional study in Italy. Breast. 2011;20:264-270.
40. Riedl CC, Ponhold L, Flory D, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast improves detection of invasive cancer, preinvasive cancer, and premalignant lesions during surveillance of women at high risk for breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:6144-6152.
41. Hochman MG, Orel SG, Powell CM, et al. Fibroadenomas: MR imaging appearances with radiologic-histopathologic correlation. Radiology. 1997;204: 123-129.
42. Kuijper A, Mommers EC, van der Wall E, et al. Histopathology of fibroa-denoma of the breast. Am J Clin Pathol. 2001;115:736-742.
43. Unal O, Koparan HI, Avcu S, et al. The diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in soft tissue abscesses. Eur J Radiol. 2011;77: 490-494.
44. Oto A, Schmid-Tannwald C, Agrawal G, et al. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of abdominopelvic abscesses. Emerg Radiol. 2011;18:515-524.
45. Yabuuchi H, Matsuo Y, Kamitani T, et al. Non-mass-like enhancement on contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging: lesion characterization using combination of dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR images. Eur J Radiol. 2010;75:e126-e132.
46. Baltzer PA, Benndorf M, Dietzel M, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of unenhanced MR mammography (DWI combined with T2-weighted TSE imaging, ueMRM) for the differentiation of mass lesions. Eur Radiol. 2010;20: 1101-1110.
47. Dietzel M, Baltzer PA, Dietzel A, et al. Artificial neural networks for differential diagnosis of breast lesions in MR-mammography: a systematic approach addressing the influence of network architecture on diagnostic performance using a large clinical database. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:1508-1513.
48. Baltzer PA, Dietzel M, Kaiser WA. A simple and robust classification tree for differentiation between benign and malignant lesions in MR-mammography. Eur Radiol. 2013;23:2051-2060.