Top

Published in:

01-05-2011 | Breast

Kinetic analysis of lesions without mass effect on breast MRI using manual and computer-assisted methods

Authors: Tibor Vag, Pascal A. T. Baltzer, Matthias Dietzel, Ramy Zoubi, Mieczyslaw Gajda, Oumar Camara, Werner A. Kaiser

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 5/2011

Abstract

Objective

To analyse the kinetic characteristics of lesions without mass effect in dynamic breast MRI using manual and computer assisted methods.

Methods

The enhancement pattern of 82 histopathologically verified lesions without mass effect (36 malignant, 46 benign) was evaluated on breast MRI using manual placement of a region of interest. Commercially available computer analysis software automatically assessed volume enhancement characteristics of a lesion voxelwise. Kinetic features evaluated included classification of the signal-intensity time curve as washout, plateau or persistent enhancement.

Results

Unlike manual ROI placement, computer-aided analysis demonstrated a significant difference in enhancement pattern between benign (washout: 32.6%, plateau: 32.6%, persistent: 34.8%) and malignant lesions without mass effect (77.1%, 8.6%, 14.3% respectively, P < 0.01, two-sided Chi-squared test) following initial rapid signal increase. Mean percentage of washout voxel volumes within a lesion was significantly higher in malignant lesions than in benign lesions (11.9% +/−12.7 (SD) vs. 6.9% +/−11.3 (SD), P < 0.01, Mann–Whitney U Test). Conversely, the mean percentage of persistent voxel volumes was significantly lower in malignant lesions than in benign lesions (60.1% +/−21.1 (SD) vs. 79% +/−23 (SD), P < 0.01, Mann–Whitney U Test).

Conclusion

Computer-assisted enhancement pattern analysis might have diagnostic benefit in the evaluation of lesions without mass effect.

Drew PJ, Chatterjee S, Turnbull LW et al (1999) Dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breast is superior to triple assessment for the pre-operative detection of multifocal breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 6:599–603PubMedCrossRef

Kristoffersen Wiberg M, Aspelin P, Perbeck L et al (2002) Value of MR imaging in clinical evaluation of breast lesions. Acta Radiol 43:275–281PubMedCrossRef

Stomper PC, Herman S, Klippenstein DL et al (1995) Suspect breast lesions: findings at dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging correlated with mammographic and pathologic features. Radiology 197:387–395PubMed

Boné B, Aspelin P, Bronge L et al (1996) Sensitivity and specificity of MR mammography with histopathological correlation in 250 breasts. Acta Radiol 37:208–213PubMed

Ikeda DM, Hylton NM, Kinkel K et al (2001) Development, standardization and testing of a lexicon for reporting contrast enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging studies. J Magn Reson Imaging 13:889–895PubMedCrossRef

Malich A, Fischer DR, Wurdinger S et al (2005) Potential MRI interpretation model: differentiation of benign from malignant breast masses. Am J Roentgenol 185:964–970CrossRef

Fischer DR, Wurdinger S, Boettcher J et al (2005) Further signs in the evaluation of magnetic resonance mammography: a retrospective study. Invest Radiol 40:430–435PubMedCrossRef

Kaiser WA (2007) Breast magnetic resonance imaging: principles and techniques. Semin Roentgenol 42:228–235PubMedCrossRef

Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS et al (2004) Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology 233:830–849PubMedCrossRef

10.

Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S et al (1999) Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 211:101–110PubMed

11.

Baltzer PA, Benndorf M, Dietzel M et al (2010) False positive findings at contrast enhanced breast MRI. A BI-RADS descriptor study. Am J Roentgenol 194:1658–1663CrossRef

12.

Guitterrez ML, DeMartini WB, Eby PR et al (2009) BI-RADS lesions characteristics predict likelihood of malignancy in breast MRI for masses but not for non-mass enhancement. Am J Roentgenol 193:994–1000CrossRef

13.

Baltzer PA, Freiberg C, Beger S et al (2009) Clinical MR-mammography: are computer assisted methods superior to visual or manual measurements for curve type analysis? A systemic approach. Acad Radiol 16:1070–1076PubMedCrossRef

14.

Kaiser WA, Zeitler E (1989) MR imaging of the breast: fast imaging sequences with and without Gd-DTPA: Preliminary observations. Radiology 170:681–686PubMed

15.

Bluemke DA, Gatsonis CA, Chen MH et al (2004) Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy. JAMA 292:2735–2742PubMedCrossRef

16.

Jansen S, Fan X, Karczmar G et al (2008) DCEMRI of breast lesions: Is kinetic analysis equally effective for both mass and non-mass like enhancement? Med Phys 37:3102–3110CrossRef

17.

Neubauer H, Li M, Kuehne-Heid R et al (2003) High grade and non-high grade ductal carcinoma in situ on dynamic MR mammography: characteristic findings for signal increase and morphological pattern of enhancement. Br J Radiol 76:3–12PubMedCrossRef

18.

Jansen SA, Newstead GM, Abe H et al (2007) Pure ductal carcinoma in situ: kinetic and morphologic MR characteristics compared with mammographic appearance and nuclear grade. Radiology 245:684–691PubMedCrossRef

19.

Guidi AJ, Fischer L, Harris JR et al (1994) Microvessel density and distribution in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst 86:614–619PubMedCrossRef

20.

Gilles R, Zafrani B, Guinebretière JM et al (1995) Ductal carcinoma in situ: MR imaging-histopathologic correlation. Radiology 196:415–419PubMed

21.

Pabst T, Kenn W, Kaiser WA et al (2001) Understanding why contrast enhancement in dynamic MRI is not reproducible: illustration with a simple phantom. Breast J 7:166–170PubMedCrossRef

22.

Yabuuchi H, Matsuo Y, Kamitaki T et al (2010) Non-mass like enhancement on contrast enhanced breast imaging: lesion characterization using a combination of dynamic contrast enhanced and diffusion weighted MR images. Eur J Radiol 75:126–132CrossRef

Title: Kinetic analysis of lesions without mass effect on breast MRI using manual and computer-assisted methods
Authors: Tibor Vag
Pascal A. T. Baltzer
Matthias Dietzel
Ramy Zoubi
Mieczyslaw Gajda
Oumar Camara
Werner A. Kaiser
Publication date: 01-05-2011
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 5/2011
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-2001-6

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Kinetic analysis of lesions without mass effect on breast MRI using manual and computer-assisted methods

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2011

Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in dilated cardiomyopathy in adults—towards identification of myocardial inflammation

Usefulness of FDG PET/CT in determining benign from malignant endobronchial obstruction

Radiation dose from volumetric helical perfusion CT of the thorax, abdomen or pelvis

MR Imaging of activated hepatic stellate cells in liver injured by CCl4 of rats with integrin-targeted ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide

Obese patients in an open MRI at 1.0 Tesla: image quality, diagnostic impact and feasibility

Staging of uterine cervical cancer with MRI: guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology