DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Ultrafast Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Breast MRI: Lesion Conspicuity and Size Assessment according to Background Parenchymal Enhancement

  • Soo-Yeon Kim (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Nariya Cho (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Yunhee Choi (Medical Research Collaborating Center, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Sung Ui Shin (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Eun Sil Kim (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Su Hyun Lee (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Jung Min Chang (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital) ;
  • Woo Kyung Moon (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital)
  • Received : 2019.08.02
  • Accepted : 2020.01.13
  • Published : 2020.05.01

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the clinical utility of ultrafast dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI compared to conventional DCE-MRI by studying lesion conspicuity and size according to the level of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE). Materials and Methods: This study included 360 women (median age, 54 years; range, 26-82 years) with 361 who had undergone breast MRI, including both ultrafast and conventional DCE-MRI before surgery, between January and December 2017. Conspicuity was evaluated using a five-point score. Size was measured as the single maximal diameter. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare median conspicuity score. To identify factors associated with conspicuity, multivariable logistic regression was performed. Absolute agreement between size at MRI and histopathologic examination was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: The median conspicuity scores were 5 at both scans, but the interquartile ranges were significantly different (5-5 at ultrafast vs. 4-5 at conventional, p < 0.001). Premenopausal status (odds ratio [OR] = 2.2, p = 0.048), non-mass enhancement (OR = 4.1, p = 0.001), moderate to marked BPE (OR = 7.5, p < 0.001), and shorter time to enhancement (OR = 0.9, p = 0.043) were independently associated with better conspicuity at ultrafast scans. Tumor size agreement between MRI and histopathologic examination was similar for both scans (ICC = 0.66 for ultrafast vs. 0.63 for conventional). Conclusion: Ultrafast DCE-MRI could improve lesion conspicuity compared to conventional DCE-MRI, especially in women with premenopausal status, non-mass enhancement, moderate to marked BPE or short time to enhancement.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This study has received funding by grant (no.04-2017-0470) from the Seoul National University Hospital Research Fund.

References

  1. Mann RM, Mus RD, van Zelst J, Geppert C, Karssemeijer N, Platel B. A novel approach to contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging for screening: high-resolution ultrafast dynamic imaging. Invest Radiol 2014;49:579-585
  2. Mus RD, Borelli C, Bult P, Weiland E, Karssemeijer N, Barentsz JO, et al. Time to enhancement derived from ultrafast breast MRI as a novel parameter to discriminate benign from malignant breast lesions. Eur J Radiol 2017;89:90-96
  3. van Zelst JCM, Vreemann S, Witt HJ, Gubern-Merida A, Dorrius MD, Duvivier K, et al. Multireader study on the diagnostic accuracy of ultrafast breast magnetic resonance imaging for breast cancer screening. Invest Radiol 2018;53:579-586
  4. Goto M, Sakai K, Yokota H, Kiba M, Yoshida M, Imai H, et al. Diagnostic performance of initial enhancement analysis using ultra-fast dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for breast lesions. Eur Radiol 2019;29:1164-1174
  5. Vreemann S, Rodriguez-Ruiz A, Nickel D, Heacock L, Appelman L, van Zelst J, et al. Compressed sensing for breast MRI: resolving the trade-off between spatial and temporal resolution. Invest Radiol 2017;52:574-582
  6. Saranathan M, Rettmann DW, Hargreaves BA, Lipson JA, Daniel BL. Variable spatiotemporal resolution three-dimensional Dixon sequence for rapid dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2014;40:1392-1399
  7. Abe H, Mori N, Tsuchiya K, Schacht DV, Pineda FD, Jiang Y, et al. Kinetic analysis of benign and malignant breast lesions with ultrafast dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: comparison with standard kinetic assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016;207:1159-1166
  8. Pineda FD, Medved M, Wang S, Fan X, Schacht DV, Sennett C, et al. Ultrafast bilateral DCE-MRI of the breast with conventional Fourier sampling: preliminary evaluation of semi-quantitative analysis. Acad Radiol 2016;23:1137-1144
  9. Onishi N, Kataoka M, Kanao S, Sagawa H, Iima M, Nickel MD, et al. Ultrafast dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast using compressed sensing: breast cancer diagnosis based on separate visualization of breast arteries and veins. J Magn Reson Imaging 2018;47:97-104
  10. Mori N, Abe H, Mugikura S, Takasawa C, Sato S, Miyashita M, et al. Ultrafast dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI: kinetic curve assessment using empirical mathematical model validated with histological microvessel density. Acad Radiol 2019;26:e141-e149
  11. Kim Y, Kim SH, Song BJ, Kang BJ, Yim KI, Lee A, et al. Early prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and ultrasound in breast cancer. Korean J Radiol 2018;19:682-691
  12. Ko ES, Morris EA. Abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging for breast cancer screening: concept, early results, and considerations. Korean J Radiol 2019;20:533-541
  13. Song SE, Cho KR, Seo BK, Woo OH, Jung SP, Sung DJ. Kinetic features of invasive breast cancers on computer-aided diagnosis using 3T MRI data: correlation with clinical and pathologic prognostic factors. Korean J Radiol 2019;20:411-421
  14. American College of Radiology. ACR BI-RADS atlas®, 5th ed. Reston: American College of Radiology, 2013
  15. Rella R, Bufi E, Belli P, Contegiacomo A, Giuliani M, Rosignuolo M, et al. Background parenchymal enhancement in breast magnetic resonance imaging: a review of current evidences and future trends. Diagn Interv Imaging 2018;99:815-826
  16. Baek JE, Kim SH, Lee AW. Background parenchymal enhancement in breast MRIs of breast cancer patients: impact on tumor size estimation. Eur J Radiol 2014;83:1356-1362
  17. Park SY, Kang DK, Kim TH. Does background parenchymal enhancement on MRI affect the rate of positive resection margin in breast cancer patients? Br J Radiol 2015;88:20140638
  18. Uematsu T, Kasami M, Watanabe J. Does the degree of background enhancement in breast MRI affect the detection and staging of breast cancer? Eur Radiol 2011;21:2261-2267
  19. Uematsu T, Kasami M, Watanabe J. Background enhancement of mammary glandular tissue on breast dynamic MRI: imaging features and effect on assessment of breast cancer extent. Breast Cancer 2012;19:259-265
  20. Kang JH, Youk JH, Kim JA, Gweon HM, Eun NL, Ko KH, et al. Identification of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging features associated with positive resection margins in breast cancer: a retrospective study. Korean J Radiol 2018;19:897-904
  21. Tomida T, Urikura A, Uematsu T, Shirata K, Nakaya Y. Contrast enhancement in breast cancer and background mammary-gland tissue during the super-early phase of dynamic breast magnetic resonance imaging. Acad Radiol 2017;24:1380-1386
  22. Kim SY, Cho N, Park IA, Kwon BR, Shin SU, Kim SY, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI for evaluating residual tumor size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Radiology 2018;289:327-334
  23. Santamaria G, Bargallo X, Fernandez PL, Farrus B, Caparros X, Velasco M. Neoadjuvant systemic therapy in breast cancer: association of contrast-enhanced MR imaging findings, diffusion-weighted imaging findings, and tumor subtype with tumor response. Radiology 2017;283:663-672
  24. Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, Allred DC, Hagerty KL, Badve S, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer (unabridged version). Arch Pathol Lab Med 2010;134:e48-e72
  25. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Hicks DG, Dowsett M, McShane LM, Allison KH, et al. Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:3997-4013
  26. Kuhl CK, Bieling HB, Gieseke J, Kreft BP, Sommer T, Lutterbey G, et al. Healthy premenopausal breast parenchyma in dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast: normal contrast medium enhancement and cyclical-phase dependency. Radiology 1997;203:137-144
  27. King V, Gu Y, Kaplan JB, Brooks JD, Pike MC, Morris EA. Impact of menopausal status on background parenchymal enhancement and fibroglandular tissue on breast MRI. Eur Radiol 2012;22:2641-2647
  28. Jansen SA, Fan X, Medved M, Abe H, Shimauchi A, Yang C, et al. Characterizing early contrast uptake of ductal carcinoma in situ with high temporal resolution dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast: a pilot study. Phys Med Biol 2010;55:N473-N485
  29. Davis PL, Staiger MJ, Harris KB, Ganott MA, Klementaviciene J, McCarty KS Jr, et al. Breast cancer measurements with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasonography, and mammography. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1996;37:1-9
  30. Wasif N, Garreau J, Terando A, Kirsch D, Mund DF, Giuliano AE. MRI versus ultrasonography and mammography for preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Am Surg 2009;75:970-975
  31. Luparia A, Mariscotti G, Durando M, Ciatto S, Bosco D, Campanino PP, et al. Accuracy of tumour size assessment in the preoperative staging of breast cancer: comparison of digital mammography, tomosynthesis, ultrasound and MRI. Radiol Med 2013;118:1119-1136
  32. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 2016;15:155-163
  33. Mann RM, Kuhl CK, Kinkel K, Boetes C. Breast MRI: guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging. Eur Radiol 2008;18:1307-1318