The diverse pathology and kinetics of mass, nonmass, and focus enhancement on MR imaging of the breast.

PURPOSE: To compare the pathology and kinetic characteristics of breast lesions with focus-, mass-, and nonmass-like enhancement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 852 MRI detected breast lesions in 697 patients were selected for an IRB approved review. Patients underwent dynamic contrast enhanced MRI using one pre- and three to six postcontrast T(1)-weighted images. The "type" of enhancement was classified as mass, nonmass, or focus, and kinetic curves quantified by the initial enhancement percentage (E(1)), time to peak enhancement (T(peak)), and signal enhancement ratio (SER). These kinetic parameters were compared between malignant and benign lesions within each morphologic type. RESULTS: A total of 552 lesions were classified as mass (396 malignant, 156 benign), 261 as nonmass (212 malignant, 49 benign), and 39 as focus (9 malignant, 30 benign). The most common pathology of malignant/benign lesions by morphology: for mass, invasive ductal carcinoma/fibroadenoma; for nonmass, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)/fibrocystic change(FCC); for focus, DCIS/FCC. Benign mass lesions exhibited significantly lower E(1), longer T(peak), and lower SER compared with malignant mass lesions (P < 0.0001). Benign nonmass lesions exhibited only a lower SER compared with malignant nonmass lesions (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: By considering the diverse pathology and kinetic characteristics of different lesion morphologies, diagnostic accuracy may be improved.

Kinetic curves of malignant lesions are not consistent across MRI systems: need for improved standardization of breast dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI acquisition.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare MRI kinetic curve data acquired with three systems in the evaluation of malignant lesions of the breast. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cases of 601 patients with 682 breast lesions (185 benign, 497 malignant) were selected for review. The malignant lesions were classified as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), and other. The dynamic MRI protocol consisted of one unenhanced and three to seven contrast-enhanced images acquired with one of three imaging protocols and systems. An experienced radiologist analyzed the shapes of the kinetic curves according to the BI-RADS lexicon. Several quantitative kinetic parameters were calculated, and the kinetic parameters of malignant lesions were compared across the three systems. RESULTS: Imaging protocol and system 1 were used to image 304 malignant lesions (185 IDC, 62 DCIS); imaging protocol and system 2, 107 lesions (72 IDC, 21 DCIS); and imaging protocol and system 3, 86 lesions (64 IDC, 17 DCIS). Compared with those visualized with imaging protocols and systems 1 and 2, IDC lesions visualized with imaging protocol and system 3 had significantly less initial enhancement, longer time to peak enhancement, and a slower washout rate (p < 0.004). Only 47% of IDC lesions imaged with imaging protocol and system 3 exhibited washout type curves, compared with 75% and 74% of those imaged with imaging protocols and systems 2 and 1, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of kinetic analysis was lowest for imaging protocol and system 3, but the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The kinetic curve data on malignant lesions acquired with one system showed significantly lower initial contrast uptake and a different curve shape in comparison with data acquired with the other two systems. Differences in k-space sampling, T1 weighting, and magnetization transfer effects may be explanations for the difference.