Diagnostic Performance of Dedicated Axillary T2- and Diffusion-weighted MR Imaging for Nodal Staging in Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of unenhanced axillary T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted (DW) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for axillary nodal staging in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, with node-by-node and patient-by-patient validation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and informed consent were obtained. Fifty women (mean age, 60 years; range, 22-80 years) underwent high-spatial-resolution axillary 3.0-T T2-weighted imaging without fat suppression and DW imaging (b = 0, 500, and 800 sec/mm(2)), followed by either sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) or axillary lymph node dissection. Two radiologists independently scored each lymph node on a confidence level scale from 0 (benign) to 4 (malignant), first on T2-weighted MR images, then on DW MR images. Two researchers independently measured the mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of each lymph node. Diagnostic performance parameters were calculated on the basis of node-by-node and patient-by-patient validation. RESULTS: With respective node-by-node and patient-by-patient validation, T2-weighted MR imaging had a specificity of 93%-97% and 87%-95%, sensitivity of 32%-55% and 50%-67%, negative predictive value (NPV) of 88%-91% and 86%-89%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 60%-70% and 62%-75%, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.78 and 0.80-0.88, with good interobserver agreement (κ = 0.70). The addition of DW MR imaging resulted in lower specificity (59%-88% and 50%-84%), higher sensitivity (45%-64% and 75%-83%), comparable NPV (89% and 90%-91%), lower PPV (23%-42% and 34%-60%), and lower AUC (0.68-0.73 and 0.70-0.86). ADC measurement resulted in a specificity of 63%-64% and 61%-63%, sensitivity of 41% and 67%, NPV of 85% and 85%-86%, PPV of 18% and 35%-36%, and AUC of 0.54-0.58 and 0.69-0.74, respectively, with excellent interobserver agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.83). CONCLUSION: Dedicated high-spatial-resolution axillary T2-weighted MR imaging showed good specificity on the basis of node-by-node and patient-by-patient validation, with good interobserver agreement. However, its NPV is still insufficient to substitute it for SLNB for exclusion of axillary lymph node metastasis. DW MR imaging and ADC measurement were of no added value.

Comparison of septal strain patterns in dyssynchronous heart failure between speckle tracking echocardiography vendor systems.

AIM: To analyze inter-vendor differences of speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) in imaging cardiac deformation in patients with dyssynchronous heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: Eleven patients (all with LBBB, median age 60.7 years, 9 males) with implanted cardiac resynchronization therapy devices were prospectively included. Ultrasound systems of two vendors (i.e. General Electric and Philips) were used to record images in the apical four chamber view. Regional longitudinal strain patterns were analyzed with vendor specific software in the basal, mid and apical septal segments. Systolic strain (SS), time to peak strain (TTP) and septal rebound stretch (SRS) were determined during four pacing settings, resulting in 44 unique strain patterns per segment (total 132 patterns). Cross correlation was used to analyze the comparability of the shape of 132 normalized strain patterns. Correlation of strain patterns of the two systems was high (R(2) median: 0.68, interquartile range: 0.53-0.82). Accordingly, strain patterns of intrinsic rhythm were recognized equally using both systems, when divided into three types. GE based SS (18.9 ± 4.7%) was significantly higher than SS determined by the Philips system (13.4 ± 4.3%). TTP was slightly but non-significantly lower in GE (384 ± 77 ms) compared to Philips (404 ± 83 ms) derived strain signals. Correlation of SRS between the systems was poor, due to minor differences in the strain signal and timing of aortic valve closure. CONCLUSIONS: The two systems provide similar shape of strain patterns. However, important differences are found in the amplitude, timing of systole and SRS. Until STE is standardized, clinical decision making should be restricted to pattern analysis.