Clinical MR Mammography: Impact of Hormonal Status on Background Enhancement and Diagnostic Accuracy

Baltzer, Pascal; Dietzel, Matthias; Vag, T.; Burmeister, H; Gajda, M.; Camara, O.; Pfleiderer, Stefan O.R.; Kaiser, Werner A.

doi:10.1055/s-0029-1246072

Cited by 48 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Enhancement was highest during weeks 1 and 4 and lowest during week 2. Our results are consistent with those of previous studies (9,10,(16)(17)(18). This is not surprising, because we know that BPE depends on hormonal changes.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

Background parenchymal enhancement: is it just an innocent effect of estrogen on the breast?

Arslan

Çelìk²,

Çubuk³

et al. 2017

Diagn Interv Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

Background parenchymal enhancement: is it just an innocent effect of estrogen on the breast?

Arslan

Çelìk²,

Çubuk³

et al. 2017

Diagn Interv Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Hormonal stimulation and motion artifacts can cause false findings on MRM. In fact, a recently published study showed an increase in false-positive findings of 17 % when premenopausal patients are examined at a time other than during the second week of their menstrual cycle [21]. If diagnostic MRM is performed at the incorrect point in the menstrual cycle in premenopausal women or during hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women and if a hormonal cause for the contrast enhancement is suspected, another MRM should be performed [5,16].…”

Section: Mri-guided Lesion Markingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Management of Breast Lesions Detectable Only on MRI

Siegmann-Luz¹,

Bahrs²,

Preibsch³

et al. 2013

Fortschr Röntgenstr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Breast MR imaging has become established as?the most sensitive imaging method for diagnosing breast cancer. As a result of the increasing examination volume and improved image quality, the number of breast lesions detected only on MRI and requiring further clarification has risen in recent years. According to the S3-guideline ?Diagnosis, Therapy, and Follow-Up of Breast Cancer? as revised in July 2012, institutions performing breast MRI should provide the option of an MRI-guided intervention for clarification. This review describes the indications, methods and results of MRI-guided interventions for the clarification of breast lesions only visible on MRI. Recent guidelines and study results are also addressed and alternative methods and pitfalls are presented. Key points: Citation Format:

show abstract

“…Dynamic contrast material-enhanced MR imaging is the most sensitive technique for screening high-risk women (1)(2)(3)(4) and for evaluating the extent of disease in patients with a recent diagnosis of breast cancer (5)(6)(7)(8). Despite its numerous advantages, the moderate specificity of dynamic contrastenhanced MR imaging (affected by factors such as reader experience, imaging protocol [9,10], and background enhancement [11]) can result in a substantial number of false-positive findings requiring biopsies. Reducing the number of avoidable false-positive findings at breast dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging could substantially decrease morbidity for patients.…”

Section: Patients and Lesionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nonmalignant Breast Lesions: ADCs of Benign and High-Risk Subtypes Assessed as False-Positive at Dynamic Enhanced MR Imaging

Parsian¹,

Rahbar²,

Allison³

et al. 2012

Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:To evaluate the diffusion-weighted (DW) imaging characteristics of nonmalignant lesion subtypes assessed as false-positive findings at conventional breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. Materials and Methods:This HIPAA-compliant retrospective study had institutional review board approval, and the need for informed patient consent was waived. Lesions assessed as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 4 or 5 at clinical dynamic contrast material-enhanced MR imaging that subsequently proved nonmalignant at biopsy were retrospectively reviewed. One hundred seventy-five nonmalignant breast lesions in 165 women were evaluated. Apparent diffusion coefficients (ADCs) from DW imaging (b = 0, 600 sec/mm 2 ) were calculated for each lesion and were compared between subtypes and with an ADC threshold of 1.81 3 10 23 mm 2 /sec (determined in a prior study to achieve 100% sensitivity). Results:Eighty-one (46%) lesions exhibited ADCs greater than the predetermined threshold. /sec; n = 23) was the most common lesion subtype with ADC below the threshold. Lymph nodes exhibited the lowest mean ADC of all nonmalignant lesions ([1.28 6 0.23] 3 10 23 mm 2 /sec; n = 4). High-risk lesions (atypical ductal hyperplasia and lobular neoplasia) showed significantly lower ADCs than other benign lesions (P , .0001) and were the most common lesions with ADCs below the threshold. Conclusion:Assessing ADC along with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging features may decrease the number of avoidable false-positive findings at breast MR imaging and reduce the number of preventable biopsies.

show abstract

Clinical MR Mammography: Impact of Hormonal Status on Background Enhancement and Diagnostic Accuracy

Abstract: In premenopausal women, HS leads to increased BE of breast tissue, independent of CP. Distinct BE and less pronounced, non-optimal CP may lead to an increased number of false positive findings.

Cited by 48 publications

References 15 publications

Background parenchymal enhancement: is it just an innocent effect of estrogen on the breast?

Background parenchymal enhancement: is it just an innocent effect of estrogen on the breast?

Management of Breast Lesions Detectable Only on MRI

Nonmalignant Breast Lesions: ADCs of Benign and High-Risk Subtypes Assessed as False-Positive at Dynamic Enhanced MR Imaging

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About