Screening Breast MR Imaging: Comparison of Interpretation of Baseline and Annual Follow-up Studies

To determine whether baseline screening breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging studies have a higher rate of follow-up or biopsy recommendation than do studies with prior MR images available for comparison. This was an institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant, retrospective study. Inform...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Radiology 2011-04, Vol.259 (1), p.85-91
Hauptverfasser: ABRAMOVICI, Gil, MAINIERO, Martha B
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 91
container_issue 1
container_start_page 85
container_title Radiology
container_volume 259
creator ABRAMOVICI, Gil
MAINIERO, Martha B
description To determine whether baseline screening breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging studies have a higher rate of follow-up or biopsy recommendation than do studies with prior MR images available for comparison. This was an institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant, retrospective study. Informed consent was waived. Reports from 650 consecutive screening breast MR imaging examinations performed in women between September 2007 and December 2008 were reviewed. All examinations were performed by using the same protocol, and images were interpreted by the same radiologists. Presence of comparison studies, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category, and biopsy results were recorded. Data were analyzed by using the χ(2) test, the two-sample test of proportions, and the Fisher exact test. Mean patient age was 51 years (range, 25-81 years). Of the baseline studies, findings in 31 of 307 (10.1%) were interpreted as BI-RADS category 3 and findings in 18 of 307 (5.9%) were interpreted as BI-RADS category 4 or 5. Of the examinations with findings classified as BI-RADS category 4 or 5, the results in two of 18 (11.1%) were positive for malignancy at biopsy. Of the examinations with prior MR images for comparison, findings in nine of 343 (2.6%) were interpreted as BI-RADS category 3 and findings in 16 of 343 (4.7%) were interpreted as BI-RADS category 4 or 5. Of the examinations with findings classified as BI-RADS category 4 or 5, the results in three of 16 (18.8%) were positive for malignancy at biopsy. The difference in the number of BI-RADS category 3 interpretations between the two groups was significant (P < .001), but there was no significant difference in BI-RADS category 4 or 5 interpretations or positive predictive values. Baseline screening MR imaging was associated with a higher likelihood of recommendation for short-interval follow-up than was MR imaging with prior images for comparison.
doi_str_mv 10.1148/radiol.10101009
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_858780715</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>858780715</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-c86c1d3265197f31c5324142d9521d7090ec382c0b1f4f109c4a9daf5d29f9df3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFkMtLxDAQh4Mouj7O3iQX8VQ3kzTbxpu7-FhQBB_nks1DImlSkxbxv7fLrsocZvjxzcB8CJ0CuQQo62mS2kV_CWRdROygCXBaFcCA76IJIYwVdQniAB3m_EEIlLyu9tEBBVpzxqoJWr2oZExw4R3Pk5G5x4_PeNnK9zG5wovYdjK5HAOOFi9Db1KXTC97t0nmMhvvgsEyaHwdwiA9vo3ex69i6PBLP2hn8jHas9Jnc7LtR-jt9uZ1cV88PN0tF9cPhWJ01heqninQ48hBVJaB4oyWUFItOAVdEUGMYjVVZAW2tECEKqXQ0nJNhRXasiN0sbnbpfg5mNw3rcvKeC-DiUNu6vH3mlTAR3K6IVWKOSdjmy65VqbvBkiz9tpsvDa_XseNs-3tYdUa_cf_ihyB8y0gs5LeJhmUy_8cEzMyKzn7AUKqgRk</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>858780715</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Screening Breast MR Imaging: Comparison of Interpretation of Baseline and Annual Follow-up Studies</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>ABRAMOVICI, Gil ; MAINIERO, Martha B</creator><creatorcontrib>ABRAMOVICI, Gil ; MAINIERO, Martha B</creatorcontrib><description>To determine whether baseline screening breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging studies have a higher rate of follow-up or biopsy recommendation than do studies with prior MR images available for comparison. This was an institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant, retrospective study. Informed consent was waived. Reports from 650 consecutive screening breast MR imaging examinations performed in women between September 2007 and December 2008 were reviewed. All examinations were performed by using the same protocol, and images were interpreted by the same radiologists. Presence of comparison studies, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category, and biopsy results were recorded. Data were analyzed by using the χ(2) test, the two-sample test of proportions, and the Fisher exact test. Mean patient age was 51 years (range, 25-81 years). Of the baseline studies, findings in 31 of 307 (10.1%) were interpreted as BI-RADS category 3 and findings in 18 of 307 (5.9%) were interpreted as BI-RADS category 4 or 5. Of the examinations with findings classified as BI-RADS category 4 or 5, the results in two of 18 (11.1%) were positive for malignancy at biopsy. Of the examinations with prior MR images for comparison, findings in nine of 343 (2.6%) were interpreted as BI-RADS category 3 and findings in 16 of 343 (4.7%) were interpreted as BI-RADS category 4 or 5. Of the examinations with findings classified as BI-RADS category 4 or 5, the results in three of 16 (18.8%) were positive for malignancy at biopsy. The difference in the number of BI-RADS category 3 interpretations between the two groups was significant (P &lt; .001), but there was no significant difference in BI-RADS category 4 or 5 interpretations or positive predictive values. Baseline screening MR imaging was associated with a higher likelihood of recommendation for short-interval follow-up than was MR imaging with prior images for comparison.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0033-8419</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1527-1315</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10101009</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21285337</identifier><identifier>CODEN: RADLAX</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oak Brook, IL: Radiological Society of North America</publisher><subject>Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Biological and medical sciences ; Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Breast Neoplasms - epidemiology ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Genital system. Mammary gland ; Humans ; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects) ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods ; Mass Screening - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Prevalence ; Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry ; Reproducibility of Results ; Rhode Island - epidemiology ; Risk Assessment ; Risk Factors ; Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><ispartof>Radiology, 2011-04, Vol.259 (1), p.85-91</ispartof><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>RSNA, 2011.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-c86c1d3265197f31c5324142d9521d7090ec382c0b1f4f109c4a9daf5d29f9df3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-c86c1d3265197f31c5324142d9521d7090ec382c0b1f4f109c4a9daf5d29f9df3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27915,27916</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=23960645$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21285337$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>ABRAMOVICI, Gil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MAINIERO, Martha B</creatorcontrib><title>Screening Breast MR Imaging: Comparison of Interpretation of Baseline and Annual Follow-up Studies</title><title>Radiology</title><addtitle>Radiology</addtitle><description>To determine whether baseline screening breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging studies have a higher rate of follow-up or biopsy recommendation than do studies with prior MR images available for comparison. This was an institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant, retrospective study. Informed consent was waived. Reports from 650 consecutive screening breast MR imaging examinations performed in women between September 2007 and December 2008 were reviewed. All examinations were performed by using the same protocol, and images were interpreted by the same radiologists. Presence of comparison studies, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category, and biopsy results were recorded. Data were analyzed by using the χ(2) test, the two-sample test of proportions, and the Fisher exact test. Mean patient age was 51 years (range, 25-81 years). Of the baseline studies, findings in 31 of 307 (10.1%) were interpreted as BI-RADS category 3 and findings in 18 of 307 (5.9%) were interpreted as BI-RADS category 4 or 5. Of the examinations with findings classified as BI-RADS category 4 or 5, the results in two of 18 (11.1%) were positive for malignancy at biopsy. Of the examinations with prior MR images for comparison, findings in nine of 343 (2.6%) were interpreted as BI-RADS category 3 and findings in 16 of 343 (4.7%) were interpreted as BI-RADS category 4 or 5. Of the examinations with findings classified as BI-RADS category 4 or 5, the results in three of 16 (18.8%) were positive for malignancy at biopsy. The difference in the number of BI-RADS category 3 interpretations between the two groups was significant (P &lt; .001), but there was no significant difference in BI-RADS category 4 or 5 interpretations or positive predictive values. Baseline screening MR imaging was associated with a higher likelihood of recommendation for short-interval follow-up than was MR imaging with prior images for comparison.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - epidemiology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Genital system. Mammary gland</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</subject><subject>Mass Screening - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Prevalence</subject><subject>Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Rhode Island - epidemiology</subject><subject>Risk Assessment</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><issn>0033-8419</issn><issn>1527-1315</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpFkMtLxDAQh4Mouj7O3iQX8VQ3kzTbxpu7-FhQBB_nks1DImlSkxbxv7fLrsocZvjxzcB8CJ0CuQQo62mS2kV_CWRdROygCXBaFcCA76IJIYwVdQniAB3m_EEIlLyu9tEBBVpzxqoJWr2oZExw4R3Pk5G5x4_PeNnK9zG5wovYdjK5HAOOFi9Db1KXTC97t0nmMhvvgsEyaHwdwiA9vo3ex69i6PBLP2hn8jHas9Jnc7LtR-jt9uZ1cV88PN0tF9cPhWJ01heqninQ48hBVJaB4oyWUFItOAVdEUGMYjVVZAW2tECEKqXQ0nJNhRXasiN0sbnbpfg5mNw3rcvKeC-DiUNu6vH3mlTAR3K6IVWKOSdjmy65VqbvBkiz9tpsvDa_XseNs-3tYdUa_cf_ihyB8y0gs5LeJhmUy_8cEzMyKzn7AUKqgRk</recordid><startdate>20110401</startdate><enddate>20110401</enddate><creator>ABRAMOVICI, Gil</creator><creator>MAINIERO, Martha B</creator><general>Radiological Society of North America</general><scope>IQODW</scope><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>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20110401</creationdate><title>Screening Breast MR Imaging: Comparison of Interpretation of Baseline and Annual Follow-up Studies</title><author>ABRAMOVICI, Gil ; MAINIERO, Martha B</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-c86c1d3265197f31c5324142d9521d7090ec382c0b1f4f109c4a9daf5d29f9df3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - epidemiology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Genital system. Mammary gland</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</topic><topic>Mass Screening - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Prevalence</topic><topic>Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Rhode Island - epidemiology</topic><topic>Risk Assessment</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>ABRAMOVICI, Gil</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MAINIERO, Martha B</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>ABRAMOVICI, Gil</au><au>MAINIERO, Martha B</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Screening Breast MR Imaging: Comparison of Interpretation of Baseline and Annual Follow-up Studies</atitle><jtitle>Radiology</jtitle><addtitle>Radiology</addtitle><date>2011-04-01</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>259</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>85</spage><epage>91</epage><pages>85-91</pages><issn>0033-8419</issn><eissn>1527-1315</eissn><coden>RADLAX</coden><abstract>To determine whether baseline screening breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging studies have a higher rate of follow-up or biopsy recommendation than do studies with prior MR images available for comparison. This was an institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant, retrospective study. Informed consent was waived. Reports from 650 consecutive screening breast MR imaging examinations performed in women between September 2007 and December 2008 were reviewed. All examinations were performed by using the same protocol, and images were interpreted by the same radiologists. Presence of comparison studies, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category, and biopsy results were recorded. Data were analyzed by using the χ(2) test, the two-sample test of proportions, and the Fisher exact test. Mean patient age was 51 years (range, 25-81 years). Of the baseline studies, findings in 31 of 307 (10.1%) were interpreted as BI-RADS category 3 and findings in 18 of 307 (5.9%) were interpreted as BI-RADS category 4 or 5. Of the examinations with findings classified as BI-RADS category 4 or 5, the results in two of 18 (11.1%) were positive for malignancy at biopsy. Of the examinations with prior MR images for comparison, findings in nine of 343 (2.6%) were interpreted as BI-RADS category 3 and findings in 16 of 343 (4.7%) were interpreted as BI-RADS category 4 or 5. Of the examinations with findings classified as BI-RADS category 4 or 5, the results in three of 16 (18.8%) were positive for malignancy at biopsy. The difference in the number of BI-RADS category 3 interpretations between the two groups was significant (P &lt; .001), but there was no significant difference in BI-RADS category 4 or 5 interpretations or positive predictive values. Baseline screening MR imaging was associated with a higher likelihood of recommendation for short-interval follow-up than was MR imaging with prior images for comparison.</abstract><cop>Oak Brook, IL</cop><pub>Radiological Society of North America</pub><pmid>21285337</pmid><doi>10.1148/radiol.10101009</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0033-8419
ispartof Radiology, 2011-04, Vol.259 (1), p.85-91
issn 0033-8419
1527-1315
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_858780715
source MEDLINE; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Biological and medical sciences
Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis
Breast Neoplasms - epidemiology
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Genital system. Mammary gland
Humans
Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)
Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods
Mass Screening - statistics & numerical data
Medical sciences
Middle Aged
Prevalence
Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry
Reproducibility of Results
Rhode Island - epidemiology
Risk Assessment
Risk Factors
Sensitivity and Specificity
title Screening Breast MR Imaging: Comparison of Interpretation of Baseline and Annual Follow-up Studies
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-15T07%3A38%3A18IST&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=Screening%20Breast%20MR%20Imaging:%20Comparison%20of%20Interpretation%20of%20Baseline%20and%20Annual%20Follow-up%20Studies&rft.jtitle=Radiology&rft.au=ABRAMOVICI,%20Gil&rft.date=2011-04-01&rft.volume=259&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=85&rft.epage=91&rft.pages=85-91&rft.issn=0033-8419&rft.eissn=1527-1315&rft.coden=RADLAX&rft_id=info:doi/10.1148/radiol.10101009&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E858780715%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=858780715&rft_id=info:pmid/21285337&rfr_iscdi=true