Purpose: To establish the value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast in comparison to x-ray mammography and ultrasound for breast cancer evaluation in women with dense breast parenchyma. Materials and Methods: Two hundred thirty-eight women with dense breast parenchyma who were suspicious for breast cancer or inconclusive for the presence of breast lesions based on clinical examination, ultrasound or x-ray mammography, and who underwent breast MRI at 1.5 T before and after administration of 0.1 mmol/k., gadobenate dimeglumine were evaluated. Lesions considered malignant (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 4 or 5) on x-ray mammography and/or ultrasound and as BI-RADS 3, 4, or 5 on MRI were evaluated histologically. Other lesions were followed up at 6 and/or 18 months. The diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive and negative predictive values) of each technique was determined and compared using a general linear mixed model with appropriate correction for multiplicity. Results: At final diagnosis 121 of 238 (50.8%) women had one or more confirmed malignant lesions, whereas 117 (49.2%) had benign lesions or no lesions. Among 97 women who underwent all 3 techniques more lesions (malignant and benign) were detected with breast MRI to (n = 135) than with x-ray mammography (n = 85) or ultrasound (n = 107) and diagnostic confidence was greater. In terms of patient-based diagnostic accuracy breast M RI was significantly (P[r] < 0.0001) superior to both x-ray mammography and ultrasound (96.9% accuracy for MRI vs. 60.8% for mammography and 66.0% for US). Malignant lesions were histologically confirmed in 55 of 97 women who underwent all 3 techniques. Breast MRI detected more cases of multifocal, multicentric, and contralateral disease and fewer misdiagnoses occurred. Overall, breast MRI led to a modification of the surgical approach for 28 (23.1%) of the 121 women with diagnosed malignant disease. Conclusion: Breast MRI should be considered for routine breast cancer evaluation in women with dense breast parenchyma.

The Challenge of Imaging Dense Breast Parenchyma Is Magnetic Resonance Mammography the Technique of Choice? A Comparative Study With X-Ray Mammography and Whole-Breast Ultrasound / Pediconi, Federica; Catalano, Carlo; Roselli, Antonella; Dominelli, Valeria; Cagioli, Sabrina; Angeliki, Karatasiou; Pronio, Annamaria; Miles A., Kirchin; Passariello, Roberto. - In: INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY. - ISSN 0020-9996. - 44:7(2009), pp. 412-421. [10.1097/rli.0b013e3181a53654]

The Challenge of Imaging Dense Breast Parenchyma Is Magnetic Resonance Mammography the Technique of Choice? A Comparative Study With X-Ray Mammography and Whole-Breast Ultrasound

PEDICONI, FEDERICA;CATALANO, Carlo;ROSELLI, ANTONELLA;DOMINELLI, VALERIA;CAGIOLI, SABRINA;PRONIO, Annamaria;PASSARIELLO, Roberto
2009

Abstract

Purpose: To establish the value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast in comparison to x-ray mammography and ultrasound for breast cancer evaluation in women with dense breast parenchyma. Materials and Methods: Two hundred thirty-eight women with dense breast parenchyma who were suspicious for breast cancer or inconclusive for the presence of breast lesions based on clinical examination, ultrasound or x-ray mammography, and who underwent breast MRI at 1.5 T before and after administration of 0.1 mmol/k., gadobenate dimeglumine were evaluated. Lesions considered malignant (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 4 or 5) on x-ray mammography and/or ultrasound and as BI-RADS 3, 4, or 5 on MRI were evaluated histologically. Other lesions were followed up at 6 and/or 18 months. The diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive and negative predictive values) of each technique was determined and compared using a general linear mixed model with appropriate correction for multiplicity. Results: At final diagnosis 121 of 238 (50.8%) women had one or more confirmed malignant lesions, whereas 117 (49.2%) had benign lesions or no lesions. Among 97 women who underwent all 3 techniques more lesions (malignant and benign) were detected with breast MRI to (n = 135) than with x-ray mammography (n = 85) or ultrasound (n = 107) and diagnostic confidence was greater. In terms of patient-based diagnostic accuracy breast M RI was significantly (P[r] < 0.0001) superior to both x-ray mammography and ultrasound (96.9% accuracy for MRI vs. 60.8% for mammography and 66.0% for US). Malignant lesions were histologically confirmed in 55 of 97 women who underwent all 3 techniques. Breast MRI detected more cases of multifocal, multicentric, and contralateral disease and fewer misdiagnoses occurred. Overall, breast MRI led to a modification of the surgical approach for 28 (23.1%) of the 121 women with diagnosed malignant disease. Conclusion: Breast MRI should be considered for routine breast cancer evaluation in women with dense breast parenchyma.
2009
adolescent; adult; aged; breast cancer; breast mri; breast neoplasms; contrast enhancement; dense breast; diagnosis; female; gadobenate dimeglumine; humans; magnetic resonance imaging; mammary; mammography; methods; middle aged; reproducibility of results; sensitivity and specificity; ultrasonography; young adult
01 Pubblicazione su rivista::01a Articolo in rivista
The Challenge of Imaging Dense Breast Parenchyma Is Magnetic Resonance Mammography the Technique of Choice? A Comparative Study With X-Ray Mammography and Whole-Breast Ultrasound / Pediconi, Federica; Catalano, Carlo; Roselli, Antonella; Dominelli, Valeria; Cagioli, Sabrina; Angeliki, Karatasiou; Pronio, Annamaria; Miles A., Kirchin; Passariello, Roberto. - In: INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY. - ISSN 0020-9996. - 44:7(2009), pp. 412-421. [10.1097/rli.0b013e3181a53654]
File allegati a questo prodotto
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/402199
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 10
  • Scopus 51
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 43
social impact