Reading protocol for dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images of the breast: sensitivity and specificity analysis.

PURPOSE To prospectively determine sensitivity and specificity of breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in a screening and symptomatic population by using independent double reading, with histologic or cytologic results or a minimum 18-month follow-up as the standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS Informed consent and ethical approval were obtained. Reader performance was analyzed in 44 radiologists at 18 centers from 1541 examinations, including 1441 screening examinations in 638 high-risk women aged 24-51 years (mean, 40.5 years) and 100 examinations in symptomatic women aged 23-81 years (mean, 49.2 years). A screening protocol of dynamic T1-weighted three-dimensional imaging and 0.2 mmol/kg gadolinium-based intravenous contrast agent was used. Logistic and Poisson regressions were used to analyze reader performance in relation to experience. Correlation between readers was determined with kappa statistics. Sensitivity and specificity were analyzed according to reader, field strength, machine type, and histologic results. RESULTS The proportion of studies with lesions analyzed reduced significantly with reader experience (odds ratio, 0.84 per 6 months; P < .001), and number of regions per lesion analyzed also diminished (incidence rate ratio, 0.98 per 6 months; P = .047). The two readers for each study agreed 87% of the time, with a moderately good kappa statistic of 0.52 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.45, 0.58). By taking the reading with the highest score (most likely to be malignant) from each double-read study, sensitivity was 91% (95% CI: 83%, 96%) and specificity was 81% (95% CI: 79%, 83%). Single readings had 7% lower sensitivity (95% CI: 4%, 11%) and 7% higher specificity (95% CI: 6%, 7%). Sensitivity did not differ between MR imager manufacturers or between 1.0- and 1.5-T field strength, but there were significant differences in specificity for machine type (P = .001) and for field strength adjusted for manufacturer (P = .001). Specificity, but not sensitivity, was higher in women younger than 50 years (P = .02). CONCLUSION Independent double reading by 44 radiologists blinded to mammography results showed sensitivity and specificity acceptable for screening; sensitivity was higher when two readings were used, at the cost of specificity. Interreader correlation was moderately good, and evidence of learning was seen. Equipment manufacturer, field strength, and age affected specificity but not sensitivity.

[1]  A R Padhani,et al.  Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS) , 2005, The Lancet.

[2]  Ellen Warner,et al.  Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination , 2004, JAMA.

[3]  H. D. de Koning,et al.  Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  Matthijs Oudkerk,et al.  First experiences in screening women at high risk for breast cancer with MR imaging , 2000, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[5]  R. Tollenaar,et al.  MRI screening for breast cancer in women with high familial and genetic risk: First results of the Dutch MRI screening study (MRISC). , 2003 .

[6]  M. Fuhrer Overview of Clinical Trials in Medical Rehabilitation: Impetuses, Challenges, and Needed Future Directions , 2003, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[7]  L. Liberman,et al.  Probably benign lesions at breast magnetic resonance imaging , 2003, Cancer.

[8]  Kuhl Ck High-risk screening: multi-modality surveillance of women at high risk for breast cancer (proven or suspected carriers of a breast cancer susceptibility gene). , 2002 .

[9]  C. Zuiani,et al.  The Italian multi-centre project on evaluation of MRI and other imaging modalities in early detection of breast cancer in subjects at high genetic risk. , 2002, Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR.

[10]  R. Warren,et al.  What is the recall rate of breast MRI when used for screening asymptomatic women at high risk? , 2002, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[11]  C. Kuhl High-risk screening: multi-modality surveillance of women at high risk for breast cancer (proven or suspected carriers of a breast cancer susceptibility gene). , 2002, Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR.

[12]  Ruth Warren Is breast MRI mature enough to be recommended for general use? , 2001, The Lancet.

[13]  P. Chappuis,et al.  Re: Magnetic resonance imaging and mammography in women with a hereditary risk of breast cancer. , 2001, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[14]  J O Barentsz,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging and mammography in women with a hereditary risk of breast cancer. , 2001, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[15]  R. Warren,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging screening in women at genetic risk of breast cancer: imaging and analysis protocol for the UK multicentre study , 2000 .

[16]  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.

[17]  P. Aspelin,et al.  The potential influence of fine-needle aspiration on MR imaging of the breast. , 2000, Acta radiologica.

[18]  D Krebs,et al.  Breast MR imaging screening in 192 women proved or suspected to be carriers of a breast cancer susceptibility gene: preliminary results. , 2000, Radiology.

[19]  M O Leach,et al.  Rationale for a national multi-centre study of magnetic resonance imaging screening in women at genetic risk of breast cancer. , 2000, Breast.

[20]  R. Warren,et al.  Protocol for a national multi-centre study of magnetic resonance imaging screening in women at genetic risk of breast cancer. , 2000, Breast.

[21]  G Lutterbey,et al.  Healthy premenopausal breast parenchyma in dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast: normal contrast medium enhancement and cyclical-phase dependency. , 1997, Radiology.

[22]  K. Macrae Pragmatic Versus Explanatory Trials , 1989, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[23]  P. J. Huber The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under nonstandard conditions , 1967 .

[24]  E. Brockbank,et al.  THE MANCHESTER MEDICAL SCHOOL. , 1927 .

[25]  G. Irvine ROYAL HOSPITAL, HASLAR.: A CASE OF CEREBRAL HÆMORRHAGE PRESENTING SEVERAL UNUSUAL FEATURES ; NECROPSY , 1900 .

[26]  A. Prichard Bristol Royal Infirmary , 1857, British medical journal.

[27]  A. Prichard BRISTOL ROYAL INFIRMARY , 1856, Association medical journal.