Keywords:
Breast, MR, Mammography, Ultrasound, Equipment, Imaging sequences, Technical aspects
Authors:
S. Harms1, B. J. Hillman2, G. Stevens3, R. Stough4, A. Hollingsworth4, K. Kozlowski5, L. Moss6; 1Fayetteville, AR/US, 2Philadelphia, PA/US, 3Bastrop, TX/US, 4Oklahoma City, OK/US, 5Knoxville, TN/US, 6Worcester, MA/US
DOI:
10.1594/ecr2012/B-0799
Methods and Materials
We retrospectively assessed diagnostic performance for 1,100 consecutive screening (n=349) and diagnostic (n=751) cases performed from April 2006 to December 2007 for women aged 25-89 from four sites for which dedicated breast MRI reports and ground truth (biopsy for cancer cases; one year negative follow-up for negative cases).
Screening examinations were indicated based upon family history,
carriers or relatives of genetic mutations associated with breast cancer risk,
high risk syndromes,
high risk histology,
breast density,
or prior personal history of breast cancer.
Diagnositic study indications were local staging,
palpable mass,
axillary mass with no known primary,
nipple discharge,
retraction,
or inversion,
skin findings,
breast enlargement,
and inconclusive mammogram or ultrasound.
The study was IRB approved and HIPAA compliant.
The sensitivity,
specificity,
and ROC for the breast MRI,
mammography,
and ultrasound were calculated and compared to each other to determine if there were statistically significant differences between the modalities with respect to these parameters. All studies were performed using a 1.5 T dedicated breast MRI system (Aurora Imaging Technology,
North Andover,
MA),
employing a spiral trajectory k-space acquisition method and the RODEO® fat suppression pulse sequence which samples reconstruction space with a spiral trajectory to improve the speed and efficiency of MR data collection,
resulting in better image contrast and spatial resolution