Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Assunto da revista
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Eur Radiol ; 27(2): 562-569, 2017 Feb.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27193776

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and applicability of solitarily reading fused image series of T2-weighted and high-b-value diffusion-weighted sequences for lesion characterization as compared to sequential or combined image analysis of these unenhanced sequences and to contrast- enhanced breast MRI. METHODS: This IRB-approved study included 50 female participants with suspicious breast lesions detected in screening X-ray mammograms, all of which provided written informed consent. Prior to biopsy, all women underwent MRI including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWIBS, b = 1500s/mm2). Images were analyzed as follows: prospective image fusion of DWIBS and T2-weighted images (FU), side-by-side analysis of DWIBS and T2-weighted series (CO), combination of the first two methods (CO+FU), and full contrast-enhanced diagnostic protocol (FDP). Diagnostic indices, confidence, and image quality of the protocols were compared by two blinded readers. RESULTS: Reading the CO+FU (accuracy 0.92; NPV 96.1 %; PPV 87.6 %) and the CO series (0.90; 96.1 %; 83.7 %) provided a diagnostic performance similar to the FDP (0.95; 96.1 %; 91.3 %; p > 0.05). FU reading alone significantly reduced the diagnostic accuracy (0.82; 93.3 %; 73.4 %; p = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: MR evaluation of suspicious BI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions detected on mammography by using a non-contrast-enhanced T2-weighted and DWIBS sequence protocol is most accurate if MR images were read using the CO+FU protocol. KEY POINTS: • Unenhanced breast MRI with additional DWIBS/T2w-image fusion allows reliable lesion characterization. • Abbreviated reading of fused DWIBS/T2w-images alone decreases diagnostic confidence and accuracy. • Reading fused DWIBS/T2w-images as the sole diagnostic method should be avoided.


Assuntos
Neoplasias da Mama/diagnóstico por imagem , Imagem de Difusão por Ressonância Magnética/métodos , Mamografia/métodos , Interpretação de Imagem Radiográfica Assistida por Computador/métodos , Idoso , Mama/patologia , Neoplasias da Mama/patologia , Meios de Contraste , Feminino , Humanos , Aumento da Imagem , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Prospectivos , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Estudos Retrospectivos , Sensibilidade e Especificidade
2.
Radiology ; 278(3): 689-97, 2016 Mar.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26418516

RESUMO

PURPOSE: To evaluate the ability of a diagnostic abbreviated magnetic resonance (MR) imaging protocol consisting of maximum intensity projections (MIPs) from diffusion-weighted imaging with background suppression (DWIBS) and unenhanced morphologic sequences to help predict the likelihood of malignancy on suspicious screening x-ray mammograms, as compared with an abbreviated contrast material-enhanced MR imaging protocol and a full diagnostic breast MR imaging protocol. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective institutional review board-approved study included 50 women (mean age, 57.1 years; range, 50-69 years), who gave informed consent and who had suspicious screening mammograms and an indication for biopsy, from September 2014 to January 2015. Before biopsy, full diagnostic contrast-enhanced MR imaging was performed that included DWIBS (b = 1500 sec/mm(2)). Two abbreviated protocols (APs) based on MIPs were evaluated regarding the potential to exclude malignancy: DWIBS (AP1) and subtraction images from the first postcontrast and the unenhanced series (AP2). Diagnostic indexes of both methods were examined by using the McNemar test and were compared with those of the full diagnostic protocol and histopathologic findings. RESULTS: Twenty-four of 50 participants had a breast carcinoma. With AP1 (DWIBS), the sensitivity was 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73, 0.98), the specificity was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.77, 0.99), the negative predictive value (NPV) was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.75, 0.99), and the positive predictive value (PPV) was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.75, 0.99). The mean reading time was 29.7 seconds (range, 4.9-110.0 seconds) and was less than 3 seconds (range, 1.2-7.6 seconds) in the absence of suspicious findings on the DWIBS MIPs. With the AP2 protocol, the sensitivity was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.78, 0.95), the specificity was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.72, 0.97), the NPV was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.69, 0.95), the PPV was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.69, 0.97), and the mean reading time was 29.6 seconds (range, 6.0-100.0 seconds). CONCLUSION: Unenhanced diagnostic MR imaging (DWIBS mammography), with an NPV of 0.92 and an acquisition time of less than 7 minutes, could help exclude malignancy in women with suspicious x-ray screening mammograms. The method has the potential to reduce unnecessary invasive procedures and emotional distress for breast cancer screening participants if it is used as a complement after the regular screening clarification procedure.


Assuntos
Neoplasias da Mama/patologia , Imagem de Difusão por Ressonância Magnética , Idoso , Biópsia , Neoplasias da Mama/diagnóstico por imagem , Meios de Contraste , Feminino , Humanos , Interpretação de Imagem Assistida por Computador , Mamografia , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Prospectivos , Sensibilidade e Especificidade , Ultrassonografia Mamária
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA