Sensitivity and specificity of unenhanced MR mammography (DWI combined with T2-weighted TSE imaging, ueMRM) for the differentiation of mass lesions

Objective This study was performed to assess the sensitivity and specificity for malignant and benign mass lesions of a diagnostic approach combining DWI with T2-weighted images (unenhanced MR mammography, ueMRM) and compare the results with contrast-enhanced MR mammography (ceMRM). Materials and me...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:European radiology 2010-05, Vol.20 (5), p.1101-1110
Main Authors: Baltzer, Pascal A. T., Benndorf, Matthias, Dietzel, Matthias, Gajda, Mieczyslaw, Camara, Oumar, Kaiser, Werner A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Breast
Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis
Breast Neoplasms - pathology
Contrast Media
Diagnosis, Differential
Diagnostic Radiology
Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods
Female
Humans
Imaging
Internal Medicine
Interventional Radiology
Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Middle Aged
Neuroradiology
Radiology
Retrospective Studies
ROC Curve
Sensitivity and Specificity
Statistics, Nonparametric
Ultrasound
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objective This study was performed to assess the sensitivity and specificity for malignant and benign mass lesions of a diagnostic approach combining DWI with T2-weighted images (unenhanced MR mammography, ueMRM) and compare the results with contrast-enhanced MR mammography (ceMRM). Materials and methods Consecutive patients undergoing histopathological verification of mass lesions after MR mammography without prior breast interventions (contrast-enhanced T1-weighted, T2-weighted and DWI sequences) were eligible for this retrospective investigation. Two blinded observers first rated ueMRM and then ceMRM according to the BIRADS scale. Lesion size, ADC values and T2-weighted TSE descriptors were assessed. Results This study examined 81 lesions (27 benign, 54 malignant). Sensitivity of ueMRM was 93% (observer 1) and 86% (observer 2), respectively. Sensitivity of ceMRM was 96.5% (observer 1) and 98.3% (observer 2). Specificity was 85.2% (ueMRM) and 92.6% (ceMRM) for both observers. The differences between both methods and observers were not significant (P ≥ 0.09). Lesion size measurements did not differ significantly among all sequences analyzed. Tumor visibility was worse using ueMRM for both benign (P 
ISSN:0938-7994
1432-1084
DOI:10.1007/s00330-009-1654-5