Journals / Dicle Tıp Dergisi / 2013 / Cilt: 40 - Sayı: 4

Comparison of morphological and kinetic parameters in distinction of benign and malignant breast lesions in dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging

Dinamik kontrastlı manyetik rezonans incelemede morfolojik ve kinetik parametrelerin meme lezyonlarının iyi ve kötü huylu ayırımına katkısı

Pages
562–569
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)

Quantitative data involved in this study might be promising.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: To evaluate the value of qualitative morphological and kinetic data and quantitative kinetic data in distinction of malignancy in dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) of the breast.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: DCE-MRIs of 49 subjects were evaluated.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Quantitative data involved in this study might be promising.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the value of qualitative morphological and kinetic data and quantitative kinetic data in distinction of malignancy in dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) of the breast. Methods: DCE-MRIs of 49 subjects were evaluated. Morphological and contrast enhancement parameters of 95 lesions were recorded in these subjects. Post-contrast kinetic behavior of these lesions were also investigated. Among the quantitative parameters, relative enhancements (E1, E2, Epeak), time-to-peak (Tpeak), slope of curve (Slope), signal enhancement ratio (SER), and maximum intensity time ratio (MITR) were calculated. These results were compared with the pathological diagnosis. Results: Spiculated contour (100%), rim enhancement (97.87%), irregular shape (95.74%), and irregular margin (91.49%) were the most specific morphological features of malignancy in mass lesions. In non-mass lesions, focal zone (91.49%) was the most specific feature of malignancy. 74.5% of the benign lesions showed type 1, 77.1% of the malignant lesions showed type 2 and 3 curves according to the kinetic curve evaluation. All quantitative parameters except Epeak were found to be statistically significant in distinction of malignancy. Conclusion: None of the morphological features of the benign lesions were found to be significantly specific. More specific features can be described for malignant lesions. Early behavior of the kinetic curve is not useful for diagnosis of malignancy but the intermediate and late behavior gives useful information. Quantitative data involved in this study might be promising.

Özet

Amaç: Memenin dinamik kontrastlı manyetik rezonans görüntülemesinde (DK-MRG) kalitatif morfolojik ve kinetik veriler ile kantitatif kinetik verilerin, lezyonların malign-benign ayırımındaki katkısını değerlendirme. Yöntemler: Dinamik kontrastlı meme manyetik rezonans görüntülemesi yapılan 49 hastada 95 lezyon, önce morfolojik ve kontrastlanma özellikleri bakımından değerlendirildi. Ayrıca, lezyonların kontrast sonrası kinetik davranış- ları değerlendirildi. Sonra kantitatif parametrelerden relatif enhansmanlar (E1, E2, Epeak), zirve zamanı (time-to-peak, Tpeak), eğri eğimi (Slope), sinyal enhansman oranı (SER) ve azami yoğunluk zaman oranı (MITR) değerleri hesaplandı. Tüm bu veriler patoloji sonuçları ile karşılaş- tırıldı. Bulgular: Morfolojik özelliklerden malignite için özgünlü- ğü en yüksek olan parametreler kitlesel lezyonlarda: spiküle kenar (%100), halkasal kontrastlanma (%97,87), dü- zensiz şekil (%95,74), düzensiz kenar (%91,49), kitlesel formasyon göstermeyen lezyonlarda: fokal alan (%91,49) olarak bulundu. Kinetik eğrinin değerlendirilmesinde, benign lezyonların %74,5 i tip 1, malign lezyonların %77,1 i tip 2-3 eğri paterni sergilemekteydi. Değerlendirmeye katılan kantitatif parametrelerden Epeak dışındakiler, lezyonların benign-malign ayırımında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bulundu. Sonuç: Benign lezyonların morfolojik özelliklerinde karakteristik olarak tanımlayabileceğimiz özgünlüğü belirgin yüksek bir parametreye rastlamadık. Ancak malign lezyonlar için daha spesifik özellikler tanımlanabilmektedir. Malign ve benign lezyonlar, kinetik eğrinin erken dönem davranışı ile ayrılamamakta ancak orta-geç dönem seyrinin değerlendirilmesi ile anlamlı veriler elde edilmektedir. Değerlendirmeye kattığımız kantitatif veriler de lezyonların malign-benign ayırımında umut vaat etmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

AKSOY, D. Ö., KILIÇOĞLU, Z. G., YILMAZ, G., KADIOĞLU, E., TELLİ, S., ŞİMŞEK, M. M. (2013). Comparison of morphological and kinetic parameters in distinction of benign and malignant breast lesions in dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Dicle Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 40 - Sayı: 4, 562–569. https://ajindex.com/articles/349047

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. 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;178:1403-1409
  2. Heywang SH, Wolf A, Pruss E, et al. MR imaging of breast with Gd-DTPA: use and limitations. Radiology 1993;171:95-103
  3. Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Viehweg P, Heinig A, Kuchler C. Contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast: accuracy, value, controversies, solutions. Eur J Radiol 1997;24:94–108
  4. Gribbestad IS, Nilsen G, Fjosne H, et al. Contrast enhanced magnetic rezonance imaging of the breast. Acta Oncol 1992; 31:833-842
  5. Hrung JM, Sonnad SS, Schwartz JS, Langlotz CP. Accuracy of MR imaging in the work-up of suspicious breast lesions: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Acad Radiol 1999;6:387-397
  6. Gilles R, Guinebretiere JM, Lucidarme O, et al. Nonpalpable breast tumors: diagnosis with contrast-enhanced subtraction dynamic MR imaging. Radiology 1994; 191:625 631
  7. Bluemke DA, Gatsonis CA, Chen MH, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy. JAMA 2004; 292:2735–2742
  8. Huang W, Fisher PR, Dulaimy K, et al. Detection of breast malignancy: diagnostic MR protocol for improved specificity. Radiology 2004; 232:585–591
  9. Nunes LW, Schnall MD, Orel SG, et al. Breast MR imaging: interpretation model. Radiology 1997; 202: 833–841
  10. Nunes LW, Schnall MD, Siegelman ES, et al. Diagnostic performance characteristics of architectural features revealed by high spatial-resolution MR imaging of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997; 169:409-415
  11. Goto M, Ito H, Akazawa K, Kubota T, Kizu O, Yamada K, Nishimura T. Diagnosis of breast tumors enhancement patterns and morphologic features. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007; 25:104–112
  12. Kuhl CK, Schild HH, Morakkabati N. Dynamic bilateral contrast enhanced MR imaging of the breast: tradeoff between spatial and temporal resolution. Radiology 2005;236:789–800
  13. Orel SG, Schnall MD, LiVolsi VA, Troupin RH. Suspicious breast lesions: MR imaging with radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 1994; 190:485-493
  14. Kaiser WA, Zeitler E. MR imaging of the breast: fast imaging sequences with and without Gd-DTPA-preliminary observations. Radiology 1989; 170:681-686
  15. Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S, et al. Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 1999; 211:101-110
  16. Boetes C, Barentsz JO, Mus RD, et al. MR