MRI in the differential diagnosis of primary architectural distortion detected by mammography

We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a combination of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in lesions that manifest with architectural distortion (AD) on mammography. METHODS All full-field digital mammography (FFDM) images obtained between August 2010 and January 2013 were reviewed retrospectively, and 57 lesions showing AD were included in the study. Two independent radiologists reviewed all mammograms and MRI data and recorded lesion characteristics according to the BI-RADS lexicon. The gold standard was histopathologic results from biopsies or surgical excisions and results of the two-year follow-up. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was carried out to define the most effective threshold ADC value to differentiate malignant from benign breast lesions. We investigated the sensitivity and specificity of FFDM, DCE-MRI, FFDM+DCE-MRI, and DCE-MRI+ADC. RESULTS Of the 57 lesions analyzed, 28 were malignant and 29 were benign. The most effective threshold for the normalized ADC (nADC) was 0.61 with 93.1% sensitivity and 75.0% specificity. The sensitivity and specificity of DCE-MRI combined with nADC was 92.9% and 79.3%, respectively. DCEMRI combined with nADC showed the highest specificity and equal sensitivity compared with other modalities, independent of the presentation of calcification. CONCLUSION DCE-MRI combined with nADC values was more reliable than mammography in differentiating the nature of disease manifesting as primary AD on mammography.

Kaynakça

American College of Radiology. Illustrated breast imaging reporting and data system (BI- RADS): ultrasound. Reston, VA: American Col- lege of Radiology, 2003.

Knutzen AM, Gisvold JJ. Likelihood of malig- nant disease for various categories of mam- mographically detected, nonpalpable breast lesions. Mayo Clin Proc 1993; 68:454-460. [CrossRef]

Shaheen R, Schimmelpenninck CA, Stoddart L, Raymond H, Slanetz PJ. Spectrum of diseases presenting as architectural distortion on mam- mography: multimodality radiologic imaging with pathologic correlation. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2011; 32:351-362. [CrossRef]

Rangayyan RM, Banik S, Desautels JE. Comput- er-aided detection of architectural distortion in prior mammograms of interval cancer. J Digit Imaging 2010; 23:611-631.

Burrell HC, Sibbering DM, Wilson AR, et al. Screening interval breast cancers: mam- mographic features and prognosis factors. Ra- diology 1996; 199:811-817. [CrossRef]

Baker JA, Rosen EL, Lo JY, et al: Computer-aided detection (CAD) in screening mammography: Sensitivity of commercial CAD systems for detecting architectural distortion. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 181:1083-1088. [CrossRef]

Boyer B, Russ E. Anatomical-radiological cor- relations: architectural distortions. Diagn In- terv Imaging 2014; 95:134-140. [CrossRef]

Gennaro G, Toledano A, di Maggio C, et al. Dig- ital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mam- mography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol 2010; 20:1545-1553. [CrossRef]

Michell MJ, Iqbal A, Wasan RK, et al. A compari- son of the accuracy of film-screen mammogra- phy, full-field digital mammography, and digi- tal breast tomosynthesis. Clin Radiol 2012; 67: 976-981. [CrossRef]

Skaane P, Gullien R, Bjorndal H, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting. Acta Radiol 2012, 53:524- 529. [CrossRef]

Luparia A1, Mariscotti G, Durando M, et al. Ac- curacy of tumour size assessment in the preop- erative staging of breast cancer: comparison of digital mammography, tomosynthesis, ultra- sound and MRI. Radiol Med 2013; 118:1119- 1136. [CrossRef]

Kuhl C. The current status of breast MR imag- ing. Part I. Choice of technique, image inter- pretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice. Radiology 2007; 244:356-378. [CrossRef]

Kuhl CK. Current status of breast MR imaging. Part 2. Clinical applications. Radiology 2007; 244:672-691. [CrossRef]

Bluemke DA, Gatsonis CA, Chen MH, et al. Mag- netic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy. JAMA 2004; 292:2735-2742. [CrossRef]

Hrung JM, Sonnad SS, Schwartz JS, Langlotz CP. Accuracy of MR imaging in the work-up of sus- picious breast lesions: a diagnostic meta-anal- ysis. Acad Radiol 1999; 6:387-397. [CrossRef]

Peters NH, Borel Rinkes IH, Zuithoff NP, Mali WP, Moons KG, Peeters PH. Meta-analysis of MR im- aging in the diagnosis of breast lesions. Radiol- ogy 2008; 246:116-124. [CrossRef]

Ei Khouli RH, Jacobs MA, Mezban SD, et al. Diffu- sion-weighted imaging improves the diagnostic accuracy of conventional 3.0-T breast MR imag- ing. Radiology 2010; 256:64-73. [CrossRef]

Tsushima Y, Takahashi-Taketomi A, Endo K. Magnetic resonance (MR) differential diagnosis of breast tumors using apparent diffusion co- efficient (ADC) on 1.5-T. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009; 30:249-255. [CrossRef]

Partridge SC, Rahbar H, Murthy R, et al. Im- proved diagnostic accuracy of breast MRI through combined apparent diffusion coef- ficients and dynamic contrast-enhanced ki- netics. Magn Reson Med 2011; 65:1759-1767. [CrossRef]

Kul S, Cansu A, Alhan E, Dinc H, Gunes G, Reis A. Contribution of diffusion-weighted imaging to dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in the charac- terization of breast tumors. AJR Am J Roentge- nol 2011; 196:210-217. [CrossRef]

Yabuuchi H, Matsuo Y, Okafuji T, et al. En- hanced mass on contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging: Lesion characterization using com- bination of dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR images. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008; 28:1157-1165. [CrossRef]

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-en- hanced and diffusion-weighted MR images. Eur J Radiol 2010; 75:e126-132. [CrossRef]

Buchberger W, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Obrist P, Dunser M. Value of MR tomography in incon- clusive mammography findings. Radiology 1997; 37:702-709.

Gilles R, Guinebretiere JM, Lucidarme O, et al. Nonpalpable breast tumors: diagnosis with con- trast-enhanced subtraction dynamic MR imag- ing. Radiology 1994; 191:625-631. [CrossRef]

Schueller G, Riedl CC, Mallek R, et al. Image quality, lesion detection, and diagnostic ef- ficacy in digital mammography: full-field digital mammography versus computed radi- ography-based mammography using digital storage phosphor plates. Eur J Radiol 2008; 67:487-496. [CrossRef]

Cilotti A, Iacconi C, Marini C, et al. Contrast-en- hanced MR imaging in patients with BI-RADS 3-5 microcalcifications. Radiol Med 2007; 112:272-286. [CrossRef]

Uematsu T, Yuen S, Kasami M, Uchida Y. Dynam- ic contrast-enhanced MR imaging in screening detected microcalcification lesions of the breast: is there any value? Breast Cancer Res Treat 2007; 103:269-281. [CrossRef]

Guo Y, Cai YQ, Cai ZL, et al. Differentiation of clinically benign and malignant breast lesions using diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2002; 16:172-178. [CrossRef]

Yili Z, Xiaoyan H, Hongwen D, et al. The value of diffusion-weighted imaging in assessing the ADC changes of tissues adjacent to breast car- cinoma. BMC Cancer 2009; 9:18. [CrossRef]

Stadlbauer A, Bernt R, Gruber S, et al. Diffu- sion-weighted MR imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS) for the diag- nosis of malignant and benign breast lesions. Eur Radiol 2009; 19:2349-2356. [CrossRef]

Lo GG, Ai V, Chan JK, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of breast lesions: first experiences at 3 T. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2009; 33:63-69. [CrossRef]

Partridge SC, Demartini WB, Kurland BF, Eby PR, White SW, Lehman CD. Differential diagnosis of mammographically and clinically occult breast lesions on diffusion-weighted MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010; 31:562-570. [CrossRef]

Baltzer PA, Benndorf M, Dietzel M, Gajda M, Runnebaum IB, Kaiser WA. False-positive find- ings at contrast-enhanced breast MRI: a BI- RADS descriptor study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194:1658-1663. [CrossRef]

Pereira FP, Martins G, Figueiredo E, et al. Assess- ment of breast lesions with diffusion-weighted MRI: comparing the use of different b values. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 193:1030-1035. [CrossRef]

Partridge SC, Mullins CD, Kurland BF, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient values for dis- criminating benign and malignant breast MRI lesions: effects of lesion type and size. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194:1664-1673. [CrossRef]

Tozaki M, Fukuda K. High-spatial-resolution MRI of non-masslike breast lesions: interpre- tation model based on BI-RADS MRI descrip- tors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 187:330-337. [CrossRef]

Kim SH, Cha ES, Kim HS, et al. Diffusion-weight- ed imaging of breast cancer: correlation of the apparent diffusion coefficient value with prog- nostic factors. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009; 30:615-620. [CrossRef]

Marini C, Iacconi C, Giannelli M, Cilotti A, Moretti M, Bartolozzi C. Quantitative diffu- sion-weighted MR imaging in the differential diagnosis of breast lesion. Eur Radiol 2007; 17:2646-2655. [CrossRef]

Liberman L, Mason G, Morris FA, et al. Does size matter? Positive predictive value of MRI-de- tected breast lesions as a function of lesion size. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 186:426-430. [CrossRef]

Barreau B, de Mascarel I, Feuga C, et al. Mam- mography of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: review of 909 cases with radiograph- ic-pathologic correlations. Eur J Radiol 2005; 54:55-61. [CrossRef]

Stomper PC, Connolly JL, Meyer JE, Harris JR. Clinically occult ductal carcinoma in situ de- tected with mammography: analysis of 100 cases with radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 1989; 172:235-241. [CrossRef]

Jansen SA, Newstead GM, Abe H, Shimauchi A, Schmidt RA, Karczmar GS. Pure ductal carcino- ma in situ: kinetic and morphologic MR char- acteristics compared with mammographic ap- pearance and nuclear grade. Radiology 2007; 245:684-691. [CrossRef]

Rosen EL, Smith-Foley SA, DeMartini WB, Eby PR, Peacock S, Lehman CD. BI-RADS MRI en- hancement characteristics of ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast J 2007; 13:545-550. [CrossRef]

Kaynak Göster

1345 698

Arşiv
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

Invisible fat on CT: making it visible by MRI

EMRE ÜNAL, ALİ DEVRİM KARAOSMANOĞLU, DENİZ AKATA, MUSTAFA NASUH ÖZMEN

Percutaneous perirenal thrombin injection for the treatment of acute hemorrhage after renal biopsy

Sebastian MAFELD, Michael MCNEİLL, Philip HASLAM

Contrast medium administration and image acquisition parameters in renal CT angiography: what radiologists need to know

Charbel SAADE, Ibrahim Alsheikh DEEB, Maha MOHAMAD, Hussain MOHIY, Fadi MERHİ

Volume change of segments II and III of the liver after gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer

Can OZUTEMİZ, Funda OBUZ, Abdullah TAYLAN, Koray ATİLA, Seymen BORA, HÜLYA ELLİDOKUZ

Microvascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma

EMRE ÜNAL, İlkay Sedakat İDİLMAN, DENİZ AKATA, MUSTAFA NASUH ÖZMEN, Muşturay KARCAALTINCABA

Temporal course of microvascular obstruction after myocardial infarction assessed by MRI

Vasiliki KARAMANİ, Lars KAMPER, Hilmar BRİNKMANN, Patrick HAAGE, Melchior SEYFARTH, Melchior SEYFARTH

Utility of histogram analysis of ADC maps for differentiating orbital tumors

Xiao XU, Hao HU, SU Guo, Hu LİU, Xun-Ning HONG, Hai-Bin SHİ, Fei-Yun WU

MRI in the differential diagnosis of primary architectural distortion detected by mammography

Lifang Sİ, Xiaojuan LİU, Xiaojuan LİU, Kaiyan YANG, Li WANG, Tao JİANG

Abnormal spontaneous brain activity in minimal hepatic encephalopathy: resting-state fMRI study

Wei WU, Zhi-Ming ZHOU, Jian-Nong ZHAO, Wei WU, Da-Jing GUO

Endovascular management of renal transplant dysfunction secondary to hemodynamic effects related to ipsilateral femoral arteriovenous graft

Jason SALSAMENDİ, Keith PEREİRA, David QUİNTANA, Drew BLEİCHER, Michael GOLDSTEİN, Govindarajan NARAYANAN