Effect of Background Parenchymal Enhancement on Breast MR Imaging Interpretive Performance in Community-based Practices

被引:51
|
作者
Ray, Kimberly M. [1 ]
Kerlikowske, Karla [2 ]
Lobach, Iryna V. [2 ]
Hofmann, Michael B. [2 ]
Greenwood, Heather I. [1 ]
Arasu, Vignesh A. [1 ]
Hylton, Nola M. [1 ]
Joe, Bonnie N. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Radiol & Biomed Imaging, 1600 Divisadero St,Room C250, San Francisco, CA 94115 USA
[2] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Med & Epidemiol, 1600 Divisadero St,Room C250, San Francisco, CA 94115 USA
关键词
CONTRAST-MEDIUM ENHANCEMENT; FIBROGLANDULAR TISSUE; FOLLOW-UP; IMPACT; THERAPY; WOMEN; LINE;
D O I
10.1148/radiol.2017170811
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Purpose: To evaluate the effect of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on breast magnetic resonance (MR)imaging interpretive performance in a large multi-institutional cohort with independent analysis of screening and diagnostic MR studies. Materials and Methods: Analysis of 3770 breast MR studies was conducted. Examinations were performed in 2958 women at six participating facilities in the San Francisco Bay Area from January 2010 to October 2012. Findings were recorded prospectively in the San Francisco Mammography Registry. Performance measures were compared between studies with low BPE (mild or minimal) and those with high BPE (moderate or marked) by using binomial tests of proportions. Results: Of 1726 MR imaging studies in the screening group, 1301 were classified as having low BPE and 425 were classified as having high BPE (75% vs 25%, respectively; P <.001). Of 2044 MR imaging studies in the diagnostic group, 1443 were classified as having low BPE and 601 were classified as having high BPE (71% vs 29%, respectively; P <.001). For low versus high BPE groups at screening, abnormal interpretation rate was 157 of 1301 versus 111 of 424 (12% vs 26%, P <.001); biopsy recommendation rate was 85 of 1301 versus 54 of 424 (7% vs 13%, P <.001); and specificity was 89% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 87, 91) versus 75% (95% CI: 71, 80) (P=.01). For the low versus high BPE groups at diagnostic MR imaging, biopsy recommendation rate was 325 of 1443 versus 195 of 601 (23% vs 32%, P <.001); and specificity was 86% (95% CI: 84, 88) versus 75% (95% CI: 74, 82) (P <.001). There were no significant differences between studies with low versus high BPE in sensitivity for screening (76% [95% CI: 55, 91] vs 83% [95% CI: 52, 98]; P=.94) or diagnostic (93% [95% CI: 87, 97] vs 96% [95% CI: 87, 99]; P=.69) MR imaging, nor were there significant differences in cancer detection rate per 1000 patients between the low BPE versus high BPE groups for screening (15 per 1000 vs 24 per 1000, P=.30) or diagnostic (78 per 1000 vs 85 per 1000, P=.64) MR imaging. Conclusion: Relative to MR studies with minimal or mild BPE, those with moderate or marked BPE were associated with higher abnormal interpretation and biopsy rates and lower specificity, with no difference in cancer detection rate. (C) RSNA, 2017
引用
收藏
页码:822 / 829
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Background parenchymal enhancement in breast magnetic resonance imaging: A review of current evidences and future trends
    Rella, R.
    Bufi, E.
    Belli, P.
    Contegiacomo, A.
    Giuliani, M.
    Rosignuolo, M.
    Rinaldi, P.
    Manfredi, R.
    DIAGNOSTIC AND INTERVENTIONAL IMAGING, 2018, 99 (12) : 815 - 826
  • [22] Background parenchymal enhancement and uptake as breast cancer imaging biomarkers: A state-of-the-art review
    Bauer, Ethan
    Levy, Miri Sklair
    Domachevsky, Liran
    Anaby, Debbie
    Nissan, Noam
    CLINICAL IMAGING, 2022, 83 : 41 - 50
  • [23] Breast MRI background parenchymal enhancement as an imaging bridge to molecular cancer sub-type
    Dilorenzo, Giuseppe
    Telegrafo, Michele
    La Forgia, Daniele
    Ianora, Amato Antonio Stabile
    Moschetta, Marco
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2019, 113 : 148 - 152
  • [24] Effect of Menstrual Cycle Phase on Background Parenchymal Uptake at Molecular Breast Imaging
    Hruska, Carrie B.
    Conners, Amy Lynn
    Vachon, Celine M.
    O'Connor, Michael K.
    Shuster, Lynne T.
    Bartley, Adam C.
    Rhodes, Deborah J.
    ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2015, 22 (09) : 1147 - 1156
  • [25] Diffusion tensor imaging in the normal breast: influences of fibroglandular tissue composition and background parenchymal enhancement
    Plaza, Michael Jonathan
    Morris, Elizabeth A.
    Thakur, Sunitha B.
    CLINICAL IMAGING, 2016, 40 (03) : 506 - 511
  • [26] Background Parenchymal Enhancement at Breast MR Imaging: Normal Patterns, Diagnostic Challenges, and Potential for False-Positive and False-Negative Interpretation
    Giess, Catherine S.
    Yeh, Eren D.
    Raza, Sughra
    Birdwell, Robyn L.
    RADIOGRAPHICS, 2014, 34 (01) : 234 - U293
  • [27] Background parenchymal enhancement in contrast-enhanced MR imaging suggests systemic effects of intrauterine contraceptive devices
    Luisa Charlotte Huck
    Daniel Truhn
    Caroline Wilpert
    Eloisa Zanderigo
    Vanessa Raaff
    Ebba Dethlefsen
    Maike Bode
    Christiane Katharina Kuhl
    European Radiology, 2022, 32 : 7430 - 7438
  • [28] Background parenchymal enhancement in contrast-enhanced MR imaging suggests systemic effects of intrauterine contraceptive devices
    Huck, Luisa Charlotte
    Truhn, Daniel
    Wilpert, Caroline
    Zanderigo, Eloisa
    Raaff, Vanessa
    Dethlefsen, Ebba
    Bode, Maike
    Kuhl, Christiane Katharina
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2022, 32 (11) : 7430 - 7438
  • [29] Performance Benchmarks for Screening Breast MR Imaging in Community Practice
    Lee, Janie M.
    Ichikawa, Laura
    Valencia, Elizabeth
    Miglioretti, Diana L.
    Wernli, Karen
    Buist, Diana S. M.
    Kerlikowske, Karla
    Henderson, Louise M.
    Sprague, Brian L.
    Onega, Tracy
    Rauscher, Garth H.
    Lehman, Constance D.
    RADIOLOGY, 2017, 285 (01) : 44 - 52
  • [30] The effect of background parenchymal enhancement on the predictive performance of functional tumor volume measured in MRI
    Li, Wen
    Onishi, Natsuko
    Newitt, David C.
    Harnish, Roy
    Jones, Ella F.
    Wilmes, Lisa J.
    Gibbs, Jessica
    Price, Elissa
    Joe, Bonnie N.
    Chien, A. Jo
    Berry, Donald A.
    Boughey, Judy C.
    Albain, Kathy S.
    Clark, Amy S.
    Edmiston, Kirsten K.
    Elias, Anthony D.
    Ellis, Erin D.
    Euhus, David M.
    Han, Heather S.
    Isaacs, Claudine
    Khan, Qamar J.
    Lang, Julie E.
    Lu, Janice
    Meisel, Jane L.
    Mitri, Zaha
    Nanda, Rita
    Northfelt, Donald W.
    Sanft, Tara
    Stringer-Reasor, Erica
    Viscusi, Rebecca K.
    Wallace, Anne M.
    Yee, Douglas
    Yung, Rachel
    Melisko, Michelle E.
    Perlmutter, Jane
    Rugo, Hope S.
    Schwab, Richard
    Symmans, Fraser
    van't Veer, Laura J.
    Yau, Christina
    Asare, Smita M.
    DeMichele, Angela
    Goudreau, Sally
    Abe, Hiroyuki
    Sheth, Deepa
    Wolverton, Dulcy
    Fountain, Kelly
    Ha, Richard
    Wynn, Ralph
    Crane, Erin P.
    CANCER RESEARCH, 2020, 80 (04)