Fast and noninvasive characterization of suspicious lesions detected at breast cancer X-ray screening: Capability of diffusion-weighted MR imaging with MIPs

Radiology

Volumn 278, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 689-697

  Bickelhaupt, Sebastian ^a   Laun, Frederik B ^a   Tesdorff, Jana ^a   Lederer, Wolfgang ^b   Daniel, Heidi ^c   Stieber, Anne ^d   Delorme, Stefan ^a   Schlemmer, Heinz Peter ^a  

^a GERMAN CANCER RESEARCH CENTER DKFZ   (Germany)

^b ATOS KLINIK HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

^c Radiology Center Mannheim   (Germany)

^d UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GADOBENATE DIMEGLUMINE; CONTRAST MEDIUM;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; BREAST CARCINOMA; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING WITH BACKGROUND SUPPRESSION; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAMMOGRAPHY; MAXIMUM INTENSITY PROJECTION; MIDDLE AGED; NON INVASIVE MEASUREMENT; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; BIOPSY; BREAST TUMOR; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; MULTICENTER STUDY; PATHOLOGY; RADIOGRAPHY;

AGED; BIOPSY; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CONTRAST MEDIA; DIFFUSION MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY;

EID: 84959378813     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2015150425     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Tabár L, Vitak B, Chen TH, et al. Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology 2011;260(3):658-663.
2. Smith RA, Duffy SW, Tabár L. Breast cancer screening: the evolving evidence. Oncology (Williston Park) 2012;26(5):471-475, 479-481, 485-486.
3. Paci E, Broeders M, Hofvind S, Puliti D, Duffy SW; EUROSCREEN Working Group. European breast cancer service screening outcomes: a first balance sheet of the benefits and harms. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2014;23(7):1159-1163.
4. Autier P, Boniol M, Gavin A, Vatten LJ. Breast cancer mortality in neighbouring European countries with different levels of screening but similar access to treatment: trend analysis of WHO mortality database. BMJ 2011;343:d4411.
5. Stout NK, Lee SJ, Schechter CB, et al. Benefits, harms, and costs for breast cancer screening after US implementation of digital mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014;106(6): dju092.
6. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Strobel K, Schild HH, Hilgers RD, Bieling HB. Abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): first postcontrast subtracted images and maximum-intensity projection-a novel approach to breast cancer screening with MRI. J Clin Oncol 2014;32(22):2304-2310.
7. Trimboli RM, Verardi N, Cartia F, Carbonaro LA, Sardanelli F. Breast cancer detection using double reading of unenhanced MRI including T1-weighted, T2-weighted STIR, and diffusion-weighted imaging: a proof of concept study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;203(3):674-681.
8. Thomassin-Naggara I, De Bazelaire C, Chopier J, Bazot M, Marsault C, Trop I. Diffusionweighted MR imaging of the breast: advantages and pitfalls. Eur J Radiol 2013;82(3):435-443.
9. Stadlbauer A, Bernt R, Gruber S, et al. Diffusionweighted MR imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS) for the diagnosis of malignant and benign breast lesions. Eur Radiol 2009;19(10):2349-2356.
10. Takahara T, Imai Y, Yamashita T, Yasuda S, Nasu S, Van Cauteren M. Diffusion weighted whole body imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS): technical improvement using free breathing, STIR and high resolution 3D display. Radiat Med 2004;22(4):275-282.
11. Liu XS. Implications of statistical power for confidence intervals. Br J Math Stat Psychol 2012;65(3):427-437.
12. Mammographie. K. Evaluation report 2010. Results of the Mammography-Screening-Program in Germany. 2014.
13. Payne JI, Martin T, Caines JS, Duggan R. The burden of false-positive results in analog and digital screening mammography: experience of the Nova Scotia Breast Screening Program. Can Assoc Radiol J 2014;65(4):315-320.
14. Alcusky M, Philpotts L, Bonafede M, Clarke J, Skoufalos A. The patient burden of screening mammography recall. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2014;23(Suppl 1):S11-S19.
15. Kuhl CK. MR imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2006;14(3):391-402, vii.
16. Janka R, Hammon M, Geppert C, Nothhelfer A, Uder M, Wenkel E. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of benign and malignant breast lesions before and after contrast enhancement. Rofo 2014;186(2):130-135.
17. Rahbar H, Partridge SC, Eby PR, et al. Characterization of ductal carcinoma in situ on diffusion weighted breast MRI. Eur Radiol 2011;21(9):2011-2019.
18. Spick C, Pinker-Domenig K, Rudas M, Helbich TH, Baltzer PA. MRI-only lesions: application of diffusion-weighted imaging obviates unnecessary MR-guided breast biopsies. Eur Radiol 2014;24(6):1204-1210.
19. Wisner DJ, Rogers N, Deshpande VS, et al. High-resolution diffusion-weighted imaging for the separation of benign from malignant BI-RADS 4/5 lesions found on breast MRI at 3T. J Magn Reson Imaging 2014;40(3):674-681.
20. Yoo H, Shin HJ, Baek S, et al. Diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient and quantitative kinetic parameters for predicting additional malignancy in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer. Magn Reson Imaging 2014;32(7):867-874.
21. Youk JH, Son EJ, Chung J, Kim J-A, Kim EK. Triple-negative invasive breast cancer on dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusionweighted MR imaging: comparison with other breast cancer subtypes. Eur Radiol 2012;22(8):1724-1734.
22. Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M, et al. Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time. Br J Radiol 2012;85(1020):e1174-e1178.
23. Kavanagh AM, Giles GG, Mitchell H, Cawson JN. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of screening mammography and symptomatic status. J Med Screen 2000;7(2):105-110.