Unenhanced breast MRI: could it replace dynamic breast MRI in detecting and characterizing breast lesions?
Background We aimed to evaluate the unenhanced MRI of the breast (UE-MRI) as an effective substitute for dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI (DCE-MRI) in both detecting and characterizing breast lesions. We enrolled in our retrospective study 125 females (232 breasts, as 18 patients had unilateral...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine 2020-01, Vol.51 (1), p.10-8, Article 10 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 8 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 10 |
container_title | Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine |
container_volume | 51 |
creator | Khalil, Reham Osman, Noha Mohamed Chalabi, Nivine Abdel Ghany, Enas |
description | Background
We aimed to evaluate the unenhanced MRI of the breast (UE-MRI) as an effective substitute for dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI (DCE-MRI) in both detecting and characterizing breast lesions. We enrolled in our retrospective study 125 females (232 breasts, as 18 patients had unilateral mastectomy) with breast mass at MRI of variable pathologies. Routine DCE-MRI protocol of the breast was conducted. We compared the conventional unenhanced images including STIR, T2, and DWIs to the DCE-MRI by two blinded radiologists, to detect and characterize breast lesions, and then we compared their results with the final reference diagnoses supplied by the histopathology or serial negative follow-ups. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy for UE-MRI and DCE-MRI were calculated. UE-MRI results of each observer were also compared with DCE- MRI.
Results
The calculated UE-MRI sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy for the first observer were 95%, 80%, 83%, 94%, and 89% respectively, and for the second observer, they were 94%, 79%, 81%, 93%, and 86%. On the other hand, those for the DCE-MRI by the first observer were 98%, 82%, 84%, 98%, and 90% and were 97%, 81%, 84%, 97%, and 89% by the second observer. The intraobserver agreement between the UE-MRI and DCE-MRI results of each observer was 94% and 95%, while the interobserver agreement for each section was 97.4% for UE-MRI and 98.3% for DCE-MRI.
Conclusion
UE-MRI of the breast can be a reliable and effective substitute for breast DCE-MRI. It can be used with comparable accuracy to DCE-MRI whenever contrast administration is not feasible or contraindicated. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1186/s43055-019-0103-y |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2729530574</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A680179056</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_c2ceddcf01884ccba7561bab1cdc71d1</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A680179056</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c492t-577218d05b110da034d7a27f8aba87c7a6f00e45d8fb7e9a5b6e7944863ae0a73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1UcFq3DAQNaGFhjQf0JsgZ6cjWZbsXkoIbbOQUCjNWYyl8UaLV9pK3sP266uNQ5NCIyFGDO89Zt6rqg8cLjnv1McsG2jbGnhfHjT14aQ6FdBDLbUSb17831XnOW-gHAnAlTytNveBwgMGS44NiTDP7O7H6hOzcT855meWaDehJeYOAbfevgAxH5ijmezsw5phcMw-YEI7U_K_j60n6ETZx5A_v6_ejjhlOn-qZ9X91y8_r2_q2-_fVtdXt7WVvZjrVmvBOwftwDk4hEY6jUKPHQ7YaatRjQAkW9eNg6Ye20GR7qXsVIMEqJuzarXouogbs0t-i-lgInrz2IhpbTDN3k5krCh7OzsC7zpp7YC6VXzAgVtnNXe8aF0sWrsUf-0pz2YT9ymU8Y3Qom-L71o-o9ZYRH0Y41x82PpszZXqgOseWlVQl_9BleuoGBsDjb70_yHwhWBTzDnR-HcZDuYYvFmCNyV4cwzeHApHLJxcsGFN6Xng10l_AM6kr54</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2729530574</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Unenhanced breast MRI: could it replace dynamic breast MRI in detecting and characterizing breast lesions?</title><source>SpringerOpen</source><source>Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><creator>Khalil, Reham ; Osman, Noha Mohamed ; Chalabi, Nivine ; Abdel Ghany, Enas</creator><creatorcontrib>Khalil, Reham ; Osman, Noha Mohamed ; Chalabi, Nivine ; Abdel Ghany, Enas</creatorcontrib><description>Background
We aimed to evaluate the unenhanced MRI of the breast (UE-MRI) as an effective substitute for dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI (DCE-MRI) in both detecting and characterizing breast lesions. We enrolled in our retrospective study 125 females (232 breasts, as 18 patients had unilateral mastectomy) with breast mass at MRI of variable pathologies. Routine DCE-MRI protocol of the breast was conducted. We compared the conventional unenhanced images including STIR, T2, and DWIs to the DCE-MRI by two blinded radiologists, to detect and characterize breast lesions, and then we compared their results with the final reference diagnoses supplied by the histopathology or serial negative follow-ups. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy for UE-MRI and DCE-MRI were calculated. UE-MRI results of each observer were also compared with DCE- MRI.
Results
The calculated UE-MRI sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy for the first observer were 95%, 80%, 83%, 94%, and 89% respectively, and for the second observer, they were 94%, 79%, 81%, 93%, and 86%. On the other hand, those for the DCE-MRI by the first observer were 98%, 82%, 84%, 98%, and 90% and were 97%, 81%, 84%, 97%, and 89% by the second observer. The intraobserver agreement between the UE-MRI and DCE-MRI results of each observer was 94% and 95%, while the interobserver agreement for each section was 97.4% for UE-MRI and 98.3% for DCE-MRI.
Conclusion
UE-MRI of the breast can be a reliable and effective substitute for breast DCE-MRI. It can be used with comparable accuracy to DCE-MRI whenever contrast administration is not feasible or contraindicated.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2090-4762</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 0378-603X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2090-4762</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1186/s43055-019-0103-y</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Biopsy ; Breast ; Breasts ; Chemotherapy ; Comparative analysis ; DCE-MRI ; Histochemistry ; Histopathology ; Imaging ; Magnetic resonance imaging ; Mammography ; Mastectomy ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Morphology ; Nuclear Medicine ; Radiology ; Statistical analysis ; UE-MRI ; Ultrasonic imaging</subject><ispartof>Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, 2020-01, Vol.51 (1), p.10-8, Article 10</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2020</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2020 Springer</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2020. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c492t-577218d05b110da034d7a27f8aba87c7a6f00e45d8fb7e9a5b6e7944863ae0a73</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c492t-577218d05b110da034d7a27f8aba87c7a6f00e45d8fb7e9a5b6e7944863ae0a73</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3318-4497</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>315,782,786,866,27931,27932</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Khalil, Reham</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Osman, Noha Mohamed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chalabi, Nivine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abdel Ghany, Enas</creatorcontrib><title>Unenhanced breast MRI: could it replace dynamic breast MRI in detecting and characterizing breast lesions?</title><title>Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine</title><addtitle>Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med</addtitle><description>Background
We aimed to evaluate the unenhanced MRI of the breast (UE-MRI) as an effective substitute for dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI (DCE-MRI) in both detecting and characterizing breast lesions. We enrolled in our retrospective study 125 females (232 breasts, as 18 patients had unilateral mastectomy) with breast mass at MRI of variable pathologies. Routine DCE-MRI protocol of the breast was conducted. We compared the conventional unenhanced images including STIR, T2, and DWIs to the DCE-MRI by two blinded radiologists, to detect and characterize breast lesions, and then we compared their results with the final reference diagnoses supplied by the histopathology or serial negative follow-ups. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy for UE-MRI and DCE-MRI were calculated. UE-MRI results of each observer were also compared with DCE- MRI.
Results
The calculated UE-MRI sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy for the first observer were 95%, 80%, 83%, 94%, and 89% respectively, and for the second observer, they were 94%, 79%, 81%, 93%, and 86%. On the other hand, those for the DCE-MRI by the first observer were 98%, 82%, 84%, 98%, and 90% and were 97%, 81%, 84%, 97%, and 89% by the second observer. The intraobserver agreement between the UE-MRI and DCE-MRI results of each observer was 94% and 95%, while the interobserver agreement for each section was 97.4% for UE-MRI and 98.3% for DCE-MRI.
Conclusion
UE-MRI of the breast can be a reliable and effective substitute for breast DCE-MRI. It can be used with comparable accuracy to DCE-MRI whenever contrast administration is not feasible or contraindicated.</description><subject>Biopsy</subject><subject>Breast</subject><subject>Breasts</subject><subject>Chemotherapy</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>DCE-MRI</subject><subject>Histochemistry</subject><subject>Histopathology</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Magnetic resonance imaging</subject><subject>Mammography</subject><subject>Mastectomy</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Morphology</subject><subject>Nuclear Medicine</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>UE-MRI</subject><subject>Ultrasonic imaging</subject><issn>2090-4762</issn><issn>0378-603X</issn><issn>2090-4762</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNp1UcFq3DAQNaGFhjQf0JsgZ6cjWZbsXkoIbbOQUCjNWYyl8UaLV9pK3sP266uNQ5NCIyFGDO89Zt6rqg8cLjnv1McsG2jbGnhfHjT14aQ6FdBDLbUSb17831XnOW-gHAnAlTytNveBwgMGS44NiTDP7O7H6hOzcT855meWaDehJeYOAbfevgAxH5ijmezsw5phcMw-YEI7U_K_j60n6ETZx5A_v6_ejjhlOn-qZ9X91y8_r2_q2-_fVtdXt7WVvZjrVmvBOwftwDk4hEY6jUKPHQ7YaatRjQAkW9eNg6Ye20GR7qXsVIMEqJuzarXouogbs0t-i-lgInrz2IhpbTDN3k5krCh7OzsC7zpp7YC6VXzAgVtnNXe8aF0sWrsUf-0pz2YT9ymU8Y3Qom-L71o-o9ZYRH0Y41x82PpszZXqgOseWlVQl_9BleuoGBsDjb70_yHwhWBTzDnR-HcZDuYYvFmCNyV4cwzeHApHLJxcsGFN6Xng10l_AM6kr54</recordid><startdate>20200110</startdate><enddate>20200110</enddate><creator>Khalil, Reham</creator><creator>Osman, Noha Mohamed</creator><creator>Chalabi, Nivine</creator><creator>Abdel Ghany, Enas</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><general>SpringerOpen</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3318-4497</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200110</creationdate><title>Unenhanced breast MRI: could it replace dynamic breast MRI in detecting and characterizing breast lesions?</title><author>Khalil, Reham ; Osman, Noha Mohamed ; Chalabi, Nivine ; Abdel Ghany, Enas</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c492t-577218d05b110da034d7a27f8aba87c7a6f00e45d8fb7e9a5b6e7944863ae0a73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Biopsy</topic><topic>Breast</topic><topic>Breasts</topic><topic>Chemotherapy</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>DCE-MRI</topic><topic>Histochemistry</topic><topic>Histopathology</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Magnetic resonance imaging</topic><topic>Mammography</topic><topic>Mastectomy</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Morphology</topic><topic>Nuclear Medicine</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>UE-MRI</topic><topic>Ultrasonic imaging</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Khalil, Reham</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Osman, Noha Mohamed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chalabi, Nivine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abdel Ghany, Enas</creatorcontrib><collection>SpringerOpen</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Khalil, Reham</au><au>Osman, Noha Mohamed</au><au>Chalabi, Nivine</au><au>Abdel Ghany, Enas</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Unenhanced breast MRI: could it replace dynamic breast MRI in detecting and characterizing breast lesions?</atitle><jtitle>Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine</jtitle><stitle>Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med</stitle><date>2020-01-10</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>51</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>10</spage><epage>8</epage><pages>10-8</pages><artnum>10</artnum><issn>2090-4762</issn><issn>0378-603X</issn><eissn>2090-4762</eissn><abstract>Background
We aimed to evaluate the unenhanced MRI of the breast (UE-MRI) as an effective substitute for dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI (DCE-MRI) in both detecting and characterizing breast lesions. We enrolled in our retrospective study 125 females (232 breasts, as 18 patients had unilateral mastectomy) with breast mass at MRI of variable pathologies. Routine DCE-MRI protocol of the breast was conducted. We compared the conventional unenhanced images including STIR, T2, and DWIs to the DCE-MRI by two blinded radiologists, to detect and characterize breast lesions, and then we compared their results with the final reference diagnoses supplied by the histopathology or serial negative follow-ups. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy for UE-MRI and DCE-MRI were calculated. UE-MRI results of each observer were also compared with DCE- MRI.
Results
The calculated UE-MRI sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy for the first observer were 95%, 80%, 83%, 94%, and 89% respectively, and for the second observer, they were 94%, 79%, 81%, 93%, and 86%. On the other hand, those for the DCE-MRI by the first observer were 98%, 82%, 84%, 98%, and 90% and were 97%, 81%, 84%, 97%, and 89% by the second observer. The intraobserver agreement between the UE-MRI and DCE-MRI results of each observer was 94% and 95%, while the interobserver agreement for each section was 97.4% for UE-MRI and 98.3% for DCE-MRI.
Conclusion
UE-MRI of the breast can be a reliable and effective substitute for breast DCE-MRI. It can be used with comparable accuracy to DCE-MRI whenever contrast administration is not feasible or contraindicated.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><doi>10.1186/s43055-019-0103-y</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3318-4497</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2090-4762 |
ispartof | Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, 2020-01, Vol.51 (1), p.10-8, Article 10 |
issn | 2090-4762 0378-603X 2090-4762 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2729530574 |
source | SpringerOpen; Directory of Open Access Journals; EZB Electronic Journals Library |
subjects | Biopsy Breast Breasts Chemotherapy Comparative analysis DCE-MRI Histochemistry Histopathology Imaging Magnetic resonance imaging Mammography Mastectomy Medicine Medicine & Public Health Morphology Nuclear Medicine Radiology Statistical analysis UE-MRI Ultrasonic imaging |
title | Unenhanced breast MRI: could it replace dynamic breast MRI in detecting and characterizing breast lesions? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-06T15%3A59%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Unenhanced%20breast%20MRI:%20could%20it%20replace%20dynamic%20breast%20MRI%20in%20detecting%20and%20characterizing%20breast%20lesions?&rft.jtitle=Egyptian%20Journal%20of%20Radiology%20and%20Nuclear%20Medicine&rft.au=Khalil,%20Reham&rft.date=2020-01-10&rft.volume=51&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=10&rft.epage=8&rft.pages=10-8&rft.artnum=10&rft.issn=2090-4762&rft.eissn=2090-4762&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186/s43055-019-0103-y&rft_dat=%3Cgale_doaj_%3EA680179056%3C/gale_doaj_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2729530574&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A680179056&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_c2ceddcf01884ccba7561bab1cdc71d1&rfr_iscdi=true |