4.6 Article

The Added Diagnostic Value of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI at 3.0 T in Nonpalpable Breast Lesions

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094233

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To investigate the added diagnostic value of 3.0 Tesla breast MRI over conventional breast imaging in the diagnosis of in situ and invasive breast cancer and to explore the role of routine versus expert reading. Materials and Methods: We evaluated MRI scans of patients with nonpalpable BI-RADS 3-5 lesions who underwent dynamic contrast-enhanced 3.0 Tesla breast MRI. Initially, MRI scans were read by radiologists in a routine clinical setting. All histologically confirmed index lesions were re-evaluated by two dedicated breast radiologists. Sensitivity and specificity for the three MRI readings were determined, and the diagnostic value of breast MRI in addition to conventional imaging was assessed. Interobserver reliability between the three readings was evaluated. Results: MRI examinations of 207 patients were analyzed. Seventy-eight of 207 (37.7%) patients had a malignant lesion, of which 33 (42.3%) patients had pure DCIS and 45 (57.7%) invasive breast cancer. Sensitivity of breast MRI was 66.7% during routine, and 89.3% and 94.7% during expert reading. Specificity was 77.5% in the routine setting, and 61.0% and 33.3% during expert reading. In the routine setting, MRI provided additional diagnostic information over clinical information and conventional imaging, as the Area Under the ROC Curve increased from 0.76 to 0.81. Expert MRI reading was associated with a stronger improvement of the AUC to 0.87. Interobserver reliability between the three MRI readings was fair and moderate. Conclusions: 3.0 T breast MRI of nonpalpable breast lesions is of added diagnostic value for the diagnosis of in situ and invasive breast cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available