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) 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 Jacobs, M. A. Articles by Bhujwalla, Z. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Jacobs, M. A. Articles by Bhujwalla, Z.

Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions: Diagnosis with Multiparametric MR Imaging¹

¹ From the Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Traylor Bldg, Room 217, 712 Rutland Ave, Baltimore, MD 21205 (M.A.J., P.B.B., D.A.B., C.M., C.A., E.H.H., Z.B.); and F. M. Kirby Research Center for Functional Brain Imaging, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, Md (P.B.B.). Received March 22, 2002; revision requested June 11; final revision received January 13, 2003; accepted February 24. M.A.J. supported by NIH T32 CA09630 and by Breast Cancer Spore P50 CA88843. P.B.B. supported by NIH R21CA/RR91798. D.A.B. supported by NIH RFA CA96012. Address correspondence to M.A.J. (e-mail: mikej@mri.jhu.edu).

PURPOSE: To both develop and use a tissue signature method for the identification and classification of breast lesions and healthy breast tissue with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six patients underwent breast MR imaging (T1- and T2-weighted imaging and three-dimensional T1-weighted imaging with and without contrast material enhancement), followed by biopsy or mastectomy and histopathologic analysis. Tissue cluster analysis was performed by using the iterative self-organizing data technique to identify glandular, adipose, and lesion tissue signature vectors. Glandular and lesion tissue vectors were characterized by angular separation from the reference adipose tissue vector. Differences in angular separation of histologically proved benign and malignant lesion groups were evaluated with an independent t test. The usefulness of the angular separation model for distinguishing benign from malignant lesions was evaluated with nonparametric receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.

RESULTS: The model enabled successful identification and characterization of breast lesion tissue clusters in all patients; 18 lesions were benign, and 18 were malignant. Angular separation ± SD was 17.8° ± 6.1° between adipose tissue and malignant lesions and 29.0° ± 11.2° between adipose tissue and benign lesions. Angular separations of benign lesions and malignant lesions were significantly different (P = .002), with a specificity of 78% and sensitivity of 89% at a cutoff value of 21°. Significant differences in angular separation from adipose tissue also were found between glandular tissue and lesion tissue (P < .001) and, in glandular tissue, between patients with benign lesions and those with malignant lesions (P = .04). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.84.

CONCLUSION: Multispectral analysis of conventional breast MR images based on the iterative self-organizing data model and on measurement of angular separation between tissue signature vectors may enable automated lesion identification and classification.

© RSNA, 2003

Index terms: Breast neoplasms, MR, 00.12141 • Cancer screening • Computers, diagnostic aid • Magnetic resonance (MR), tissue characterization

This article has been cited by other articles:

				F. Pediconi, C. Catalano, A. Roselli, S. Padula, F. Altomari, E. Moriconi, A. M. Pronio, M. A. Kirchin, and R. Passariello Contrast-enhanced MR Mammography for Evaluation of the Contralateral Breast in Patients with Diagnosed Unilateral Breast Cancer or High-Risk Lesions Radiology, June 1, 2007; 243(3): 670 - 680. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. J. Macura, R. Ouwerkerk, M. A. Jacobs, and D. A. Bluemke Patterns of Enhancement on Breast MR Images: Interpretation and Imaging Pitfalls RadioGraphics, November 1, 2006; 26(6): 1719 - 1734. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. R. Rausch and R. E. Hendrick How to Optimize Clinical Breast MR Imaging Practices and Techniques on Your 1.5-T System RadioGraphics, September 1, 2006; 26(5): 1469 - 1484. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. Pediconi, C. Catalano, R. Occhiato, F. Venditti, F. Fraioli, A. Napoli, M. A. Kirchin, and R. Passariello Breast Lesion Detection and Characterization at Contrast-enhanced MR Mammography: Gadobenate Dimeglumine versus Gadopentetate Dimeglumine Radiology, October 1, 2005; 237(1): 45 - 56. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. G. Astrakas, D. Zurakowski, A. A. Tzika, M. K. Zarifi, D. C. Anthony, U. De Girolami, N. J. Tarbell, and P. M. Black Noninvasive Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopic Imaging Biomarkers to Predict the Clinical Grade of Pediatric Brain Tumors Clin. Cancer Res., December 15, 2004; 10(24): 8220 - 8228. [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]