Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast: quantitative method for kinetic curve type assessment.

OBJECTIVE The type of contrast enhancement kinetic curve (i.e., persistently enhancing, plateau, or washout) seen on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) of the breast is predictive of malignancy. Qualitative estimates of the type of curve are most commonly used for interpretation of DCE-MRI. The purpose of this study was to compare qualitative and quantitative methods for determining the type of contrast enhancement kinetic curve on DCE-MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS Ninety-six patients underwent breast DCE-MRI. The type of DCE-MRI kinetic curve was assessed qualitatively by three radiologists on two occasions. For quantitative assessment, the slope of the washout curve was calculated. Kappa statistics were used to determine inter- and intraobserver agreement for the qualitative method. Matched sample tables, the McNemar test, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve statistics were used to compare quantitative versus qualitative methods for establishing or excluding malignancy. RESULTS Seventy-eight lesions (77.2%) were malignant and 23 (22.8%) were benign. For the qualitative assessment, the intra- and interobserver agreement was good (kappa = 0.76-0.88), with an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.73-0.77. For the quantitative method, the highest AUC was 0.87, reflecting significantly higher diagnostic accuracies compared with qualitative assessment (p < 0.01 for the difference between the two methods). CONCLUSION Quantitative assessment of the type of contrast enhancement kinetic curve on breast DCE-MRI resulted in significantly higher diagnostic performance for establishing or excluding malignancy compared with assessment based on the standard qualitative method.

[1]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[2]  N E Hawass,et al.  Comparing the sensitivities and specificities of two diagnostic procedures performed on the same group of patients. , 1997, The British journal of radiology.

[3]  C. Kuhl,et al.  Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? , 1999, Radiology.

[4]  C. Kuhl,et al.  Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? , 1999, Radiology.

[5]  E A Sickles,et al.  Dynamic high-spatial-resolution MR imaging of suspicious breast lesions: diagnostic criteria and interobserver variability. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[6]  M D Schnall,et al.  A combined architectural and kinetic interpretation model for breast MR images. , 2001, Academic radiology.

[7]  Wei Huang,et al.  Detection of breast malignancy: diagnostic MR protocol for improved specificity. , 2004, Radiology.

[8]  N. Hylton,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy. , 2004, JAMA.

[9]  N. Hylton,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy. , 2004, JAMA.

[10]  Hans H Schild,et al.  Dynamic bilateral contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast: trade-off between spatial and temporal resolution. , 2005, Radiology.

[11]  Jurgen J Fütterer,et al.  Variability in the Description of Morphologic and Contrast Enhancement Characteristics of Breast Lesions onMagnetic Resonance Imaging , 2005, Investigative radiology.

[12]  R. Fimmers,et al.  Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[13]  N. Hylton,et al.  Diagnostic architectural and dynamic features at breast MR imaging: multicenter study. , 2006, Radiology.

[14]  R. Birdwell,et al.  Patterns of Enhancement on Breast MR Images: Interpretation and Imaging Pitfalls , 2008 .

[15]  David A. Bluemke,et al.  Diffusion-weighted Imaging Improves the Diagnostic Accuracy of Conventional 3.0-T , 2010 .