HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 2243010547v1 224/3/881    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Teifke, A. Articles by Thelen, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Teifke, A. Articles by Thelen, M.

Undetected Malignancies of the Breast: Dynamic Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging at 1.0 T¹

¹ From the Departments of Radiology (A.T., A.H., T.B., T.W.V., S.S., M.T.), Gynaecology (M.S.), and Pathology (H.A.L.), Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Langenbeckstrasse 1, D-55131 Mainz, Germany. Received March 2, 2001; revision requested April 16; final revision received February 6, 2002; accepted March 6. Supported by a grant from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Th 315/7-1). Address correspondence to A.T. (e-mail: teifke@radiologie.klinik.uni-mainz.de).

PURPOSE: To assess the prevalence and characteristics of malignant breast lesions not identified with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Breast tissue specimens were obtained in 464 of 967 patients who had undergone dynamic gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted fast low-angle shot three-dimensional MR imaging of both breasts. A comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of the prospectively recorded findings of mammography, ultrasonography (US), and MR imaging with the histopathologic results was performed with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. MR imaging examination findings that caused a false-negative diagnosis were reviewed to identify possible sources of error.

RESULTS: Histopathologic analysis revealed 244 benign and 354 malignant lesions. The sensitivity values for mammography, mammography combined with US, MR imaging alone, and the combination of all three modalities were 73.7%, 88.1%, 88.4%, and 95.5%, and the areas under the ROC curves were 0.744, 0.829, 0.850, and 0.876, respectively. Twenty-eight (8.4%) of 334 invasive and 13 (65%) of 20 intraductal carcinomas were missed with MR imaging. In eight cases, motion artifacts (n = 1), tumor location near or beyond the outer boundary of the field of view (n = 3), inadequate infusion of the contrast material (n = 1), and masking of the tumors by intensively enhanced surrounding glandular tissue (n = 3) were identified as adequate explanations for the false-negative results. The remaining missed breast cancers (n = 33) exhibited very diffuse growth patterns or were 5 mm or smaller.

CONCLUSION: MR imaging did not depict 41 of 354 malignant tumors for several reasons.

© RSNA, 2002

Index terms: Breast, cysts, 00.3199, 00.721 • Breast, MR, 00.121411, 00.121412 • Breast neoplasms, 00.311, 00.327, 00.81, 00.813 • Breast neoplasms, diagnosis, 00.327, 00.81, 00.813 • Breast neoplasms, US, 00.1298 • Breast radiography, comparative studies, 00.11

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Orel Who Should Have Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evaluation? J. Clin. Oncol., February 10, 2008; 26(5): 703 - 711. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. E. Noz and G. Q. Maguire Jr. Reply: 18F-FDG PET in Detecting Primary Breast Cancer J. Nucl. Med., October 1, 2007; 48(10): 1752 - 1752. [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Kuhl The Current Status of Breast MR Imaging * Part I. Choice of Technique, Image Interpretation, Diagnostic Accuracy, and Transfer to Clinical Practice Radiology, August 1, 2007; 244(2): 356 - 378. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Moy, F. Ponzo, M. E. Noz, G. Q. Maguire Jr., A. D. Murphy-Walcott, A. E. Deans, M. T. Kitazono, L. Travascio, and E. L. Kramer Improving Specificity of Breast MRI Using Prone PET and Fused MRI and PET 3D Volume Datasets J. Nucl. Med., April 1, 2007; 48(4): 528 - 537. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Ghai, D. Muradali, K. Bukhanov, and S. Kulkarni Nonenhancing Breast Malignancies on MRI: Sonographic and Pathologic Correlation Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2005; 185(2): 481 - 487. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. A. Bluemke, C. A. Gatsonis, M. H. Chen, G. A. DeAngelis, N. DeBruhl, S. Harms, S. H. Heywang-Kobrunner, N. Hylton, C. K. Kuhl, C. Lehman, et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Breast Prior to Biopsy JAMA, December 8, 2004; 292(22): 2735 - 2742. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]