Journals / Marmara Medical Journal / 2013 / Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 3

-

Dinamik kontrastlı meme magnetik rezonans görüntülemesinde tanımlanmış skorlama sisteminin ve eklenebilecek kantitatif verilerin tanıya katkısı

Pages
151–157
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Also, statistically significant Tpeak and Smax quantitative values can be useful in the diagnosis of breast lesions.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: To assess whether identified scoring system and various guantitative data would help clinicians to distinguishing malignant from benign breast lesions more accurately on the dynamic contrast enhancedmagnetic resonance images (DCE-MRI).Patients and Methods: Ninety-five lesions included in our research were evaluated by a scoring system (Fischer’s score) that can be accepted as an analogue of breast imaging-reporting and data systems (BI-RADS).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Time to peak enhancement (Tpeak), maximum slope of enhancement curves (Smax) and washout values which are quantitative parameters computed from kinetic data were calculated.Results: In the evaluation the Fischer scoring system, specificities of total points 0-3, 4 and 5-8 were 23.40%, 78.87% and 97.87% respectively.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Also, statistically significant Tpeak and Smax quantitative values can be useful in the diagnosis of breast lesions.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Meme · DK-MRG · Dinamik

Abstract

Objective: To assess whether identified scoring system and various guantitative data would help clinicians to distinguishing malignant from benign breast lesions more accurately on the dynamic contrast enhancedmagnetic resonance images (DCE-MRI).Patients and Methods: Ninety-five lesions included in our research were evaluated by a scoring system (Fischer’s score) that can be accepted as an analogue of breast imaging-reporting and data systems (BI-RADS). Time to peak enhancement (Tpeak), maximum slope of enhancement curves (Smax) and washout values which are quantitative parameters computed from kinetic data were calculated.Results: In the evaluation the Fischer scoring system, specificities of total points 0-3, 4 and 5-8 were 23.40%, 78.87% and 97.87% respectively. The parameters of the scoring system showed that the shape of a lesion which is one of the morphologic characteristics, was statistically the most significant parameter (p=0.001). Rim enhancement had the highest specificity (97.87%) of the morphologic parameters. There was no significant difference between malignant and benign lesions in the percentage of early enhancement when we examined the kinetic data. There was significant difference between kinetic curves of type 1 compared to types 2-3 (p=0.001). The quantitative parameters Tpeak and Smax, were statistically significant.Conclusion: Scoring systems in which both morphologic parameters and kinetic curves are evaluated give useful information in distinguishing benign from malignant breast lesions. Also, statistically significant Tpeak and Smax quantitative values can be useful in the diagnosis of breast lesions.

Özet

Amaç: Dinamik kontrastlı magnetik rezonans görüntüleme (DK-MRG) tekniği ile meme kitlelerinin değerlendirilmesinde tanımlanmış olan skorlama sisteminin ve farklı kantitatif verilerin, lezyonların malign veya benign ayırımındaki katkısını değerlendirmek. Hastalar ve Yöntem: Çalışmamızda 95 lezyon, meme görüntülemeraporlama ve veri [(breast imaging-reporting and data system (BIRADS)] sisteminin analoğu olarak kabul edilebilecek bir skorlama sistemi (Fischer’s score) ile değerlendirildi. Ayrıca kinetik verilerden hesaplanan kantitatif parametreler time to peak enhancement (Tpeak), maximum slope of enhancement curve (Smax) ve washout değerleri hesaplandı. Bulgular istatistiksel olarak değerlendirildi. Bulgular:Fischer skorlama sisteminin total puanının değerlendirilmesinde sırasıyla 0-3, 4 ve 5-8 puanların spesifite değerleri: %23,40, %78,87 ve %97,87 bulunmuştur. Skorlama sisteminin parametreleri ayrı ayrı değerlendirildiğinde: morfolojik özelliklerden şekil, istatistiksel olarak en anlamlı (p=0,001) grup olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Halkasal kontrastlanma ise spesifitesi en yüksek morfolojik parametredir (%97,87). Kinetik verilerden erken dönem kontrastlanma yüzdesinin malign ve benign lezyonlarda anlamlı farklılık göstermediği görülmektedir.. Kinetik eğri tipleri, tip 1 ve tip 2-3 şeklinde değerlendirmeye katıldığında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bulunmuştur (p=0,001). Kantitatif parametrelerden Tpeak ve Smax istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bulundu. Sonuç: Morfolojik parametreler ile kinetik eğri verilerinin birlikte değerlendirildiği skorlama sistemi, lezyonların benign-malign ayırımında faydalı bilgiler sağlamaktadır. Ayrıca, kantitatif parametrelerden anlamlı bulunan Tpeak ve Smax değerlerinin de tanısal başarıya katkı sağlayabilecek potansiyele sahip veriler olduğu düşünülmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

AKSOY, D. Ö., KILIÇOĞLU, Z. G., ŞİMŞEK, M. M., TELLİ, S., YILMAZ, G., KADIOĞLU, E. (2013). -. Marmara Medical Journal, Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 3, 151–157. https://ajindex.com/articles/283918

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Jansen SA, Fan X, Karczmar GS, Abe H, Schmid RA. DCEMRI of breast lesions: Is kinetic analysis equally effective for both mass and nonmass-like enhancement? Med Phys 2008
  2. 3102–9. doi: 10.1118/1.2936220 2. Abraham DC, Jones RC, Jones SE, et al. Evaluation of neoadjuvant chemotherapeutic response of locally advanced breast cancer by magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 1996
  3. 91–100. doi: 10.1002/ (SICI]1097-0142(19960701]78:1 3.0.CO
  4. 2 3. Boetes C, Mus RD, Holland R, et al. Breast tumors: Comparative accuracy of MR imaging relative to mammography and US for demonstrating extent. Radiology 1995
  5. 743–7. 4. Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E. Breast carcinoma: effect of preoperative contrast enhanced MR imaging on the therapeutic approach. Radiology 1999
  6. Siegmann KC, Müller-Schimpfle MM, Schick F, et al. MR imaging– detected breast lesions: histopathological correlation of lesion characteristics and signal intensity data. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002
  7. doi:10.2214/ajr.178.6.1781403 6. KarahaliouA, Vassiou K, Arikidis NS, et al. Assessing heterogeneity of lesion enhancement kinetics in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for breast cancer diagnosis. Br J Radiol 2010
  8. doi:10.1259/ bjr/50743919 7. Orel SG. Differentiating benign from malignant enhancing lesions identified at MR imaging of the breast: Are time-signal intensity curves an accurate predictor? Radiology 1999
  9. Kaiser WA, Zeitler E. MR imaging of the breast: fast imaging sequences with and without Gd-DTPA-preliminary observations. Radiology 1989
  10. 6 9. Lee CH. Problem solving MR imaging of the breast. Radiol Clin North Am 2004
  11. 919–34. doi:10.1016/j.rcl.2004.05.001 10. Sivarjan U, Jayapragasam KJ, Abdul Aziz YF, Rahmat K, Bux SI. Dynamic contrast enhancement magnetic rezonance imaging evaluation of breast lesions: a morphological and quantitative analysis. JHK Coll Radiol 2009
  12. Heywang SH, Wolf A, Pruss E, Hilbertz T, Eiermann W, Permanetter W. MR imaging of breast wth Gd-DTPA: use and limitations. Radiology 1993
  13. Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Viehweg P, Heinig A, Kuchler C. Contrastenhanced MRI of the breast: accuracy, value, controversies, solutions. Eur J Radiol 1997
  14. 94–108. doi: 10.1016/S0720-048X(96]01142-4 13. Schnall MD, Blume J, Bluemke DA, et al. Diagnostic architectural and dynamic features at breast MR imaging: multicenter study. Radiology 2006
  15. 42–5. doi:10.1148/radiol.2381042117 14. Harms SE, Flamig DP, Hesley