Skip to main content

Combined contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance and diffusion-weighted imaging reading adapted to the “Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System” for multiparametric 3-T imaging of breast lesions

European Radiology volume 23, pages 1791–1802 (2013)Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

To develop and assess a combined reading for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance (CE-MRI) and diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) adapted to the BI-RADS for multiparametric MRI of the breast at 3 T.

Methods

A total of 247 patients with histopathologically verified breast lesions were included in this IRB-approved prospective study. All patients underwent CE-MR and DWI at 3 T. MRIs were classified according to BI-RADS and assessed for apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values. A reading method that adapted ADC thresholds to the assigned BI-RADS classification was developed. Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy and the area under the curve were calculated. BI-RADS-adapted reading was compared with previously published reading methods in the same population. Inter- and intra-reader variability was assessed.

Results

Sensitivity of BI-RADS-adapted reading was not different from the high sensitivity of CE-MRI (P = 0.4). BI-RADS-adapted reading maximised specificity (89.4 %), which was significantly higher compared with CE-MRI (P < 0.001). Previous reading methods did not perform as well as the BI-RADS method except for a logistic regression model. BI-RADS-adapted reading was more sensitive in non-mass-like enhancements (NMLE) and was more robust to inter- and intra-reader variability.

Conclusion

Multiparametric 3-T MRI of the breast using a BI-RADS-adapted reading is fast, simple to use and significantly improves the diagnostic accuracy of breast MRI.

Keypoints

• Multiparametric breast 3-T MRI with BI-RADS-adapted reading improves diagnostic accuracy.

• BI-RADS-adapted reading of CE-MRI and DWI is based on established reporting guidelines.

• BI-RADS-adapted reading is fast and easy to use in routine clinical practice.

• BI-RADS-adapted reading is robust to intra- and inter-reader variability.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. Jacobs MA, Barker PB, Bluemke DA et al (2003) Benign and malignant breast lesions: diagnosis with multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology 229:225–232

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Pinker K, Bogner W, Gruber S et al (2011) Molecular imaging in breast cancer - potential future aspects. Breast Care (Basel) 6:110–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Jacobs MA (2009) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of breast cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 6:523–526

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Moradi M, Salcudean SE, Chang SD, et al. (2012) Multiparametric MRI maps for detection and grading of dominant prostate tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging 35:1403–1413

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ei Khouli RH, Jacobs MA, Mezban SD et al (2010) Diffusion-weighted imaging improves the diagnostic accuracy of conventional 3.0-T breast MR imaging. Radiology 256:64–73

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Partridge SC, DeMartini WB, Kurland BF, Eby PR, White SW, Lehman CD (2009) Quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging as an adjunct to conventional breast MRI for improved positive predictive value. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:1716–1722

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Yabuuchi H, Matsuo Y, Kamitani T et al (2010) Non-mass-like enhancement on contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging: lesion characterization using combination of dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR images. Eur J Radiol 75:e126–132

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Yabuuchi H, Matsuo Y, Okafuji T et al (2008) Enhanced mass on contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging: lesion characterization using combination of dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR images. J Magn Reson Imaging: JMRI 28:1157–1165

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kul S, Cansu A, Alhan E, Dinc H, Gunes G, Reis A (2011) Contribution of diffusion-weighted imaging to dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in the characterization of breast tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:210–217

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B et al (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer 46:1296–1316

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas (BI-RADS® Atlas). American College of Radiology, Reston, VA. http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Resources/BIRADS/Mammography

  12. Bogner W, Gruber S, Pinker K et al (2009) Diffusion-weighted MR for differentiation of breast lesions at 3.0 T: how does selection of diffusion protocols affect diagnosis? Radiology 253:341–351

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Pinker K, Grabner G, Bogner W et al (2009) A combined high temporal and high spatial resolution 3 Tesla MR imaging protocol for the assessment of breast lesions: initial results. Investig Radiol 44:553–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Pinker-Domenig K, Bogner W, Gruber S et al (2012) High resolution MRI of the breast at 3 T: which BI-RADS(R) descriptors are most strongly associated with the diagnosis of breast cancer? Eur Radiol 22:322–330

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Rosset A, Spadola L, Ratib O (2004) OsiriX: an open-source software for navigating in multidimensional dicom images. J Digit Imaging 17:205–216

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bogner W, Pinker K, Bickel H et al (2012) Readout-segmented echo-pianar imaging improves the diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted MR imaging breast examinations at 3.0 T. Radiology 263:64–76

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Woodhams R, Matsunaga K, Kan S et al (2005) ADC mapping of benign and malignant breast tumors. J Magn Reson Med Sci 4:35–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wallis M, Tardivon A, Helbich T, Schreer I (2007) Guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging for Diagnostic Interventional Breast Procedures. Eur Radiol 17:581–588

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Pathologists RCo (2001) NHS Cancer Screening Programmes: Guidelinesfor non-operative diagnostic procedures and reporting in breast cancer screening. NSHBSP publication, Sheffield. http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/breastscreen/publications/nhsbsp02.pdf

  20. Pathology EWGoBS (2006) Quality assurance guidelines for pathologyEuropean guidelines for quality assurance in cancer screening and diagnosis, 4th edn. European Union, pp 219–312

  21. Kluttig A, Trocchi P, Heinig A et al (2007) Reliability and validity of needle biopsy evaluation of breast-abnormalities using the B-categorization–design and objectives of the Diagnosis Optimisation Study (DIOS). BMC Cancer 7:100

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1983) A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 148:839–843

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Pinker K, Stadlbauer A, Bogner W, Gruber S, Helbich TH (2010) Molecular imaging of cancer: MR spectroscopy and beyond. Eur J Radiol 81:566–77

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Steyerberg E (2009) Overfitting and optimism in prediction models. Clinical Prediction Models. Statistics for Biology and Health 83–100

  26. Sakamoto N, Tozaki M, Higa K et al (2008) Categorization of non-mass-like breast lesions detected by MRI. Breast Cancer 15:241–246

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Tozaki M, Fukuda K (2006) High-spatial-resolution MRI of non-masslike breast lesions: interpretation model based on BI-RADS MRI descriptors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:330–337

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Woodhams R, Kakita S, Hata H et al (2009) Diffusion-weighted imaging of mucinous carcinoma of the breast: evaluation of apparent diffusion coefficient and signal intensity in correlation with histologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:260–266

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Iima M, Le Bihan D, Okumura R et al (2011) Apparent diffusion coefficient as an MR imaging biomarker of low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ: a pilot study. Radiology 260:364–372

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rahbar H, Partridge SC, Eby PR et al (2011) Characterization of ductal carcinoma in situ on diffusion weighted breast MRI. Eur Radiol 21:2011–2019

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Bianchi S, Caini S, Cattani MG, Vezzosi V, Biancalani M, Palli D (2009) Diagnostic concordance in reporting breast needle core biopsies using the B classification-A panel in Italy. Pathol Oncol Res 15:725–732

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Bianchi S, Caini S, Renne G et al (2011) Positive predictive value for malignancy on surgical excision of breast lesions of uncertain malignant potential (B3) diagnosed by stereotactic vacuum-assisted needle core biopsy (VANCB): a large multi-institutional study in Italy. Breast 20:264–270

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Simpson PT, Reis-Filho JS, Gale T, Lakhani SR (2005) Molecular evolution of breast cancer. J Pathol 205:248–254

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Ellsworth RE, Ellsworth DL, Deyarmin B et al (2005) Timing of critical genetic changes in human breast disease. Ann Surg Oncol 12:1054–1060

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Riedl CC, Ponhold L, Flory D et al (2007) Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast improves detection of invasive cancer, preinvasive cancer, and premalignant lesions during surveillance of women at high risk for breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 13:6144–6152

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Unal O, Koparan HI, Avcu S, Kalender AM, Kisli E (2011) The diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in soft tissue abscesses. Eur J Radiol 77:490–494

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Oto A, Schmid-Tannwald C, Agrawal G et al (2011) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of abdominopelvic abscesses. Emerg Radiol 18:515–524

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kuijper A, Mommers EC, van der Wall E, van Diest PJ (2001) Histopathology of fibroadenoma of the breast. Am J Clin Pathol 115:736–742

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Kopans DB (1994) Caution on core. Radiology 193:325–326, discussion 326–328

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The Austrian National Bank ‘Jubiläumsfond’ project no. 13652, 13834, 13629 and 13418 and the Medical Scientific Fund of the Mayor of Vienna project no. 10029.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    K. Pinker, H. Bickel, T. H. Helbich & M. Weber

  2. Department of Radiology, MR Centre of Excellence, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    S. Gruber, S. Trattnig & W. Bogner

  3. Department of Surgery, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    P. Dubsky

  4. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Oncology, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    U. Pluschnig

  5. Clinical Institute of Pathology, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    M. Rudas & Z. Bago-Horvath

  6. Department of Radiology, Medical University Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria

    T. H. Helbich

Authors
  1. K. Pinker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. Bickel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. T. H. Helbich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Gruber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. P. Dubsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. U. Pluschnig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. M. Rudas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Z. Bago-Horvath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. M. Weber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. S. Trattnig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. W. Bogner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. H. Helbich.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pinker, K., Bickel, H., Helbich, T.H. et al. Combined contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance and diffusion-weighted imaging reading adapted to the “Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System” for multiparametric 3-T imaging of breast lesions. Eur Radiol 23, 1791–1802 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2771-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2771-8

Keywords

  • MRI
  • DWI
  • Breast imaging
  • 3 Tesla
  • BI-RADS