Breast imaging and reporting data system (BIRADS): Magnetic resonance imaging

Tardivon, A.; Athanasiou, A.; Thibault, Fabienne; Khoury, C. El

doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2006.08.036

Cited by 47 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In case of discordance, a consensus was reached with a third radiologist with 15 years of experience in breast MRI. All images were interpreted according to 2006 BI-RADS criteria, including morphological criteria on unenhanced T1 WI and T2WI images and enhancement and kinetic profiles following gadolinium chelates injection (21)(22)(23). The criteria are summarized in Annex 1.…”

Section: • Image Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: MRI pathological correlation following bilateral total mastectomy

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: • Image Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: MRI pathological correlation following bilateral total mastectomy

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…On MRI, breast lesions were rated according to the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System lexicon (21). Abnormal enhancement was characterized as a mass or nonmass lesion.…”

Section: Image Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Breast Cancer Staging in a Single Session: Whole-Body PET/CT Mammography

Heusner¹,

Küemmel²,

Umutlu³

et al. 2008

J Nucl Med

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Further technical developments like PET time-of-flight imaging capability may qualify even smaller lesions for detection by FDG-PET in the future [31]. Alternative PET tracers such as 18 F-16-alpha-17-beta-fluoroestradiol, as an oestrogen receptor marker [32,33] used for PET-based therapy control [34], will have to be evaluated in conjunction with PET/MRM in the future. These specific oestrogen receptor tracers may outperform the rather unspecific FDG when evaluating patients with breast cancer.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In clinical routine, breast lesions on MRM were rated according to the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon [18]. Abnormal enhancement was characterised as a mass or non-mass lesion.…”

Section: Image Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Before the injection of the FDG, a blood sample was taken to ensure that blood glucose levels were below 150 mg dl 21 . First, a supine wholebody FDG-PET/CT scan was performed 60 min after iv application of 18 F-FDG covering a field of view from the head to the upper thighs. CT image acquisition was performed in a caudocranial direction with 100 mAs at 130 kV.…”

Section: Pet Mammographymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Diagnostic accuracy of fused positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance mammography: initial results

Heusner

Hahn²,

Jonkmanns³

et al. 2011

BJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of fused fluoro-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance mammography (FDG-PET/MRM) in breast cancer patients and to compare FDG-PET/ MRM with MRM. Methods: 27 breast cancer patients (mean age 58.9¡9.9 years) underwent MRM and prone FDG-PET. Images were fused software-based to FDG-PET/MRM images. Histopathology served as the reference standard to define the following parameters for both MRM and FDG-PET/MRM: sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy for the detection of breast cancer lesions. Furthermore, the number of patients with correctly determined lesion focality was assessed. Differences between both modalities were assessed by McNemars test (p,0.05). The number of patients in whom FDG-PET/MRM would have changed the surgical approach was determined. Results: 58 breast lesions were evaluated. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy were 93%, 60%, 87%, 75% and 85% for MRM, respectively. For FDG-PET/MRM they were 88%, 73%, 90%, 69% and 92%, respectively. FDG-PET/MRM was as accurate for lesion detection (p51) and determination of the lesions' focality (p50.7722) as MRM. In only 1 patient FDG-PET/MRM would have changed the surgical treatment. Conclusion: FDG-PET/MRM is as accurate as MRM for the evaluation of local breast cancer. FDG-PET/MRM defines the tumours' focality as accurately as MRM and may have an impact on the surgical treatment in only a small portion of patients. Based on these results, FDG-PET/MRM cannot be recommended as an adjunct or alternative to MRM.

show abstract

Breast imaging and reporting data system (BIRADS): Magnetic resonance imaging

Cited by 47 publications

References 35 publications

Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: MRI pathological correlation following bilateral total mastectomy

Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: MRI pathological correlation following bilateral total mastectomy

Breast Cancer Staging in a Single Session: Whole-Body PET/CT Mammography

Diagnostic accuracy of fused positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance mammography: initial results

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About