Sensitivity and specificity of unenhanced MR mammography (DWI combined with T2-weighted TSE imaging, ueMRM) for the differentiation of mass lesions
Objective This study was performed to assess the sensitivity and specificity for malignant and benign mass lesions of a diagnostic approach combining DWI with T2-weighted images (unenhanced MR mammography, ueMRM) and compare the results with contrast-enhanced MR mammography (ceMRM). Materials and me...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | European radiology 2010-05, Vol.20 (5), p.1101-1110 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1110 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | 1101 |
| container_title | European radiology |
| container_volume | 20 |
| creator | Baltzer, Pascal A. T. Benndorf, Matthias Dietzel, Matthias Gajda, Mieczyslaw Camara, Oumar Kaiser, Werner A. |
| description | Objective
This study was performed to assess the sensitivity and specificity for malignant and benign mass lesions of a diagnostic approach combining DWI with T2-weighted images (unenhanced MR mammography, ueMRM) and compare the results with contrast-enhanced MR mammography (ceMRM).
Materials and methods
Consecutive patients undergoing histopathological verification of mass lesions after MR mammography without prior breast interventions (contrast-enhanced T1-weighted, T2-weighted and DWI sequences) were eligible for this retrospective investigation. Two blinded observers first rated ueMRM and then ceMRM according to the BIRADS scale. Lesion size, ADC values and T2-weighted TSE descriptors were assessed.
Results
This study examined 81 lesions (27 benign, 54 malignant). Sensitivity of ueMRM was 93% (observer 1) and 86% (observer 2), respectively. Sensitivity of ceMRM was 96.5% (observer 1) and 98.3% (observer 2). Specificity was 85.2% (ueMRM) and 92.6% (ceMRM) for both observers. The differences between both methods and observers were not significant (P ≥ 0.09). Lesion size measurements did not differ significantly among all sequences analyzed. Tumor visibility was worse using ueMRM for both benign (P |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00330-009-1654-5 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_733859474</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>733859474</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-b1ddfac200baa314b4dc865c2918052aae14f9ac53e69d37b683505d5ba1721b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kdFqFDEUhoModrv6AN5I8EYFR5NJMplcSq1a6FJoV7wMmeTMTMpOZk1mLPscfeFm2YVCoVfh5HznPyEfQu8o-UoJkd8SIYyRghBV0ErwQrxAC8pZWVBS85doQRSrC6kUP0GnKd2SDFIuX6MTqhSrpKgX6P4GQvKT_--nHTbB4bQF61tv9_XY4jlA6E2w4PDqGg9mGMYumm2_w59-_L3AdhwaH3Lzzk89XpfFHfiun_LF-uYc-8F0PnRf8Ayr69Vn3I4RTz1g59sWIoTJm8mPYb9nMCnhDaRcpjfoVWs2Cd4ezyX68_N8ffa7uLz6dXH2_bKwnFVT0VDnWmNLQhpjGOUNd7auhC0VrYkojQHKW2WsYFApx2RT1UwQ4URjqCxpw5bo4yF3G8d_M6RJDz5Z2GxMgHFOWjJWC8Ulz-SHJ-TtOMeQH6dLWitSyyxiiegBsnFMKUKrtzH_QNxpSvTelz740lmD3vvSIs-8PwbPzQDuceIoKAPlAUi5FTqIj5ufT30AHPWhCw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>218908703</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Sensitivity and specificity of unenhanced MR mammography (DWI combined with T2-weighted TSE imaging, ueMRM) for the differentiation of mass lesions</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Baltzer, Pascal A. T. ; Benndorf, Matthias ; Dietzel, Matthias ; Gajda, Mieczyslaw ; Camara, Oumar ; Kaiser, Werner A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Baltzer, Pascal A. T. ; Benndorf, Matthias ; Dietzel, Matthias ; Gajda, Mieczyslaw ; Camara, Oumar ; Kaiser, Werner A.</creatorcontrib><description>Objective
This study was performed to assess the sensitivity and specificity for malignant and benign mass lesions of a diagnostic approach combining DWI with T2-weighted images (unenhanced MR mammography, ueMRM) and compare the results with contrast-enhanced MR mammography (ceMRM).
Materials and methods
Consecutive patients undergoing histopathological verification of mass lesions after MR mammography without prior breast interventions (contrast-enhanced T1-weighted, T2-weighted and DWI sequences) were eligible for this retrospective investigation. Two blinded observers first rated ueMRM and then ceMRM according to the BIRADS scale. Lesion size, ADC values and T2-weighted TSE descriptors were assessed.
Results
This study examined 81 lesions (27 benign, 54 malignant). Sensitivity of ueMRM was 93% (observer 1) and 86% (observer 2), respectively. Sensitivity of ceMRM was 96.5% (observer 1) and 98.3% (observer 2). Specificity was 85.2% (ueMRM) and 92.6% (ceMRM) for both observers. The differences between both methods and observers were not significant (P ≥ 0.09). Lesion size measurements did not differ significantly among all sequences analyzed. Tumor visibility was worse using ueMRM for both benign (P < 0.001) and malignant lesions (P = 0.004).
Conclusion
Sensitivity and specificity of ueMRM in mass lesions equal that of ceMRM. However, a reduced lesion visibility in ueMRM may lead to more false-negative findings.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0938-7994</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-1084</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00330-009-1654-5</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19936758</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Breast ; Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Breast Neoplasms - pathology ; Contrast Media ; Diagnosis, Differential ; Diagnostic Radiology ; Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods ; Female ; Humans ; Imaging ; Internal Medicine ; Interventional Radiology ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Neuroradiology ; Radiology ; Retrospective Studies ; ROC Curve ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Statistics, Nonparametric ; Ultrasound</subject><ispartof>European radiology, 2010-05, Vol.20 (5), p.1101-1110</ispartof><rights>European Society of Radiology 2009</rights><rights>European Society of Radiology 2010</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-b1ddfac200baa314b4dc865c2918052aae14f9ac53e69d37b683505d5ba1721b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-b1ddfac200baa314b4dc865c2918052aae14f9ac53e69d37b683505d5ba1721b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00330-009-1654-5$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00330-009-1654-5$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904,41467,42536,51298</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19936758$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Baltzer, Pascal A. T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Benndorf, Matthias</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dietzel, Matthias</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gajda, Mieczyslaw</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Camara, Oumar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaiser, Werner A.</creatorcontrib><title>Sensitivity and specificity of unenhanced MR mammography (DWI combined with T2-weighted TSE imaging, ueMRM) for the differentiation of mass lesions</title><title>European radiology</title><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><description>Objective
This study was performed to assess the sensitivity and specificity for malignant and benign mass lesions of a diagnostic approach combining DWI with T2-weighted images (unenhanced MR mammography, ueMRM) and compare the results with contrast-enhanced MR mammography (ceMRM).
Materials and methods
Consecutive patients undergoing histopathological verification of mass lesions after MR mammography without prior breast interventions (contrast-enhanced T1-weighted, T2-weighted and DWI sequences) were eligible for this retrospective investigation. Two blinded observers first rated ueMRM and then ceMRM according to the BIRADS scale. Lesion size, ADC values and T2-weighted TSE descriptors were assessed.
Results
This study examined 81 lesions (27 benign, 54 malignant). Sensitivity of ueMRM was 93% (observer 1) and 86% (observer 2), respectively. Sensitivity of ceMRM was 96.5% (observer 1) and 98.3% (observer 2). Specificity was 85.2% (ueMRM) and 92.6% (ceMRM) for both observers. The differences between both methods and observers were not significant (P ≥ 0.09). Lesion size measurements did not differ significantly among all sequences analyzed. Tumor visibility was worse using ueMRM for both benign (P < 0.001) and malignant lesions (P = 0.004).
Conclusion
Sensitivity and specificity of ueMRM in mass lesions equal that of ceMRM. However, a reduced lesion visibility in ueMRM may lead to more false-negative findings.</description><subject>Breast</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Contrast Media</subject><subject>Diagnosis, Differential</subject><subject>Diagnostic Radiology</subject><subject>Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Interventional Radiology</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Neuroradiology</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>ROC Curve</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Statistics, Nonparametric</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><issn>0938-7994</issn><issn>1432-1084</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kdFqFDEUhoModrv6AN5I8EYFR5NJMplcSq1a6FJoV7wMmeTMTMpOZk1mLPscfeFm2YVCoVfh5HznPyEfQu8o-UoJkd8SIYyRghBV0ErwQrxAC8pZWVBS85doQRSrC6kUP0GnKd2SDFIuX6MTqhSrpKgX6P4GQvKT_--nHTbB4bQF61tv9_XY4jlA6E2w4PDqGg9mGMYumm2_w59-_L3AdhwaH3Lzzk89XpfFHfiun_LF-uYc-8F0PnRf8Ayr69Vn3I4RTz1g59sWIoTJm8mPYb9nMCnhDaRcpjfoVWs2Cd4ezyX68_N8ffa7uLz6dXH2_bKwnFVT0VDnWmNLQhpjGOUNd7auhC0VrYkojQHKW2WsYFApx2RT1UwQ4URjqCxpw5bo4yF3G8d_M6RJDz5Z2GxMgHFOWjJWC8Ulz-SHJ-TtOMeQH6dLWitSyyxiiegBsnFMKUKrtzH_QNxpSvTelz740lmD3vvSIs-8PwbPzQDuceIoKAPlAUi5FTqIj5ufT30AHPWhCw</recordid><startdate>20100501</startdate><enddate>20100501</enddate><creator>Baltzer, Pascal A. T.</creator><creator>Benndorf, Matthias</creator><creator>Dietzel, Matthias</creator><creator>Gajda, Mieczyslaw</creator><creator>Camara, Oumar</creator><creator>Kaiser, Werner A.</creator><general>Springer-Verlag</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20100501</creationdate><title>Sensitivity and specificity of unenhanced MR mammography (DWI combined with T2-weighted TSE imaging, ueMRM) for the differentiation of mass lesions</title><author>Baltzer, Pascal A. T. ; Benndorf, Matthias ; Dietzel, Matthias ; Gajda, Mieczyslaw ; Camara, Oumar ; Kaiser, Werner A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-b1ddfac200baa314b4dc865c2918052aae14f9ac53e69d37b683505d5ba1721b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Breast</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Contrast Media</topic><topic>Diagnosis, Differential</topic><topic>Diagnostic Radiology</topic><topic>Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Interventional Radiology</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Neuroradiology</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>ROC Curve</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Statistics, Nonparametric</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Baltzer, Pascal A. T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Benndorf, Matthias</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dietzel, Matthias</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gajda, Mieczyslaw</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Camara, Oumar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaiser, Werner A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</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 Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</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>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Baltzer, Pascal A. T.</au><au>Benndorf, Matthias</au><au>Dietzel, Matthias</au><au>Gajda, Mieczyslaw</au><au>Camara, Oumar</au><au>Kaiser, Werner A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Sensitivity and specificity of unenhanced MR mammography (DWI combined with T2-weighted TSE imaging, ueMRM) for the differentiation of mass lesions</atitle><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle><stitle>Eur Radiol</stitle><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><date>2010-05-01</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>20</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>1101</spage><epage>1110</epage><pages>1101-1110</pages><issn>0938-7994</issn><eissn>1432-1084</eissn><abstract>Objective
This study was performed to assess the sensitivity and specificity for malignant and benign mass lesions of a diagnostic approach combining DWI with T2-weighted images (unenhanced MR mammography, ueMRM) and compare the results with contrast-enhanced MR mammography (ceMRM).
Materials and methods
Consecutive patients undergoing histopathological verification of mass lesions after MR mammography without prior breast interventions (contrast-enhanced T1-weighted, T2-weighted and DWI sequences) were eligible for this retrospective investigation. Two blinded observers first rated ueMRM and then ceMRM according to the BIRADS scale. Lesion size, ADC values and T2-weighted TSE descriptors were assessed.
Results
This study examined 81 lesions (27 benign, 54 malignant). Sensitivity of ueMRM was 93% (observer 1) and 86% (observer 2), respectively. Sensitivity of ceMRM was 96.5% (observer 1) and 98.3% (observer 2). Specificity was 85.2% (ueMRM) and 92.6% (ceMRM) for both observers. The differences between both methods and observers were not significant (P ≥ 0.09). Lesion size measurements did not differ significantly among all sequences analyzed. Tumor visibility was worse using ueMRM for both benign (P < 0.001) and malignant lesions (P = 0.004).
Conclusion
Sensitivity and specificity of ueMRM in mass lesions equal that of ceMRM. However, a reduced lesion visibility in ueMRM may lead to more false-negative findings.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><pmid>19936758</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00330-009-1654-5</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0938-7994 |
| ispartof | European radiology, 2010-05, Vol.20 (5), p.1101-1110 |
| issn | 0938-7994 1432-1084 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_733859474 |
| source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
| subjects | Breast Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis Breast Neoplasms - pathology Contrast Media Diagnosis, Differential Diagnostic Radiology Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods Female Humans Imaging Internal Medicine Interventional Radiology Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods Medicine Medicine & Public Health Middle Aged Neuroradiology Radiology Retrospective Studies ROC Curve Sensitivity and Specificity Statistics, Nonparametric Ultrasound |
| title | Sensitivity and specificity of unenhanced MR mammography (DWI combined with T2-weighted TSE imaging, ueMRM) for the differentiation of mass lesions |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T06%3A30%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Sensitivity%20and%20specificity%20of%20unenhanced%20MR%20mammography%20(DWI%20combined%20with%20T2-weighted%20TSE%20imaging,%20ueMRM)%20for%20the%20differentiation%20of%20mass%20lesions&rft.jtitle=European%20radiology&rft.au=Baltzer,%20Pascal%20A.%20T.&rft.date=2010-05-01&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1101&rft.epage=1110&rft.pages=1101-1110&rft.issn=0938-7994&rft.eissn=1432-1084&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00330-009-1654-5&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E733859474%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=218908703&rft_id=info:pmid/19936758&rfr_iscdi=true |