Motion artifacts, lesion type, and parenchymal enhancement in breast MRI

• Verfasst von: Clauser, Paola [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Kaiser, Clemens G. [VerfasserIn]
• Titel: Motion artifacts, lesion type, and parenchymal enhancement in breast MRI
• Titelzusatz: what does really influence diagnostic accuracy?
• Verf.angabe: Paola Clauser, Matthias Dietzel, Michael Weber, Clemens G Kaiser, Pascal AT Baltzer
• Jahr: 2019
• Jahr des Originals: 2018
• Umfang: 9 S.
• Fussnoten: Gesehen am 23.07.2019 ; Article first published online: April 18, 2018
• Titel Quelle: Enthalten in: Acta radiologica
• Ort Quelle: London : Sage, 1921
• Jahr Quelle: 2019
• Band/Heft Quelle: 60(2019), 1, Seite 19-27
• ISSN Quelle: 1600-0455
• DOI: doi:10.1177/0284185118770918
• Datenträger: Online-Ressource
• Sprache: eng
• K10plus-PPN: 1669618986

Abstract

BackgroundMotion artifacts can reduce image quality of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). There is a lack of data regarding their effect on diagnostic estimates.PurposeTo evaluate factors that potentially influence readers? diagnostic estimates in breast MRI: motion artifacts; amount of fibroglandular tissue; background parenchymal enhancement; lesion size; and lesion type.Material and MethodsThis Institutional Review Board-approved, retrospective, cross-sectional, single-center study included 320 patients (mean age?=?55.1 years) with 334 histologically verified breast lesions (139 benign, 195 malignant) who underwent breast MRI. Two expert breast radiologists evaluated the images considering: motion artifacts (1?=?minimal to 4?=?marked); fibroglandular tissue (BI-RADS FGT); background parenchymal enhancement (BI-RADS BPE); lesion size; lesion type; and BI-RADS score. Univariate (Chi-square) and multivariate (Generalized Estimation Equations [GEE]) statistics were used to identify factors influencing sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy.ResultsLesions were: 230 mass (68.9%) and 59 non-mass (17.7%), no foci. Forty-five lesions (13.5%) did not enhance in MRI but were suspicious or unclear in conventional imaging. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 93.8%, 83.4%, and 89.8% for Reader 1 and 95.4%, 87.8%, and 91.9% for Reader 2. Lower sensitivity was observed in case of increased motion artifacts (P?=?0.007), non-mass lesions (P?