Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Accuracy of magnetic resonance in suspicious breast lesions: a systematic quantitative review and meta-analysis

  • Review
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Dynamic contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance (MR) is a promising emerging technique for evaluating breast lesions. A quantitative systematic review was performed to estimate the accuracy of breast MR in the diagnosis of high-risk breast lesions and breast cancer. A comprehensive search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, LILACS, and EMBASE databases was performed from January 1985 to August 2010. The medical subjects heading (MeSH) and text words for the terms “breast neoplasm”, “breast lesions”, “breast cancer” and “magnetic resonance” were combined with the MeSH term diagnosis (“sensitivity and specificity”). Studies that compared breast MR with paraffin-embedded sections parameters for the diagnosis of breast lesions (benign, high-risk borderline, and breast cancer) were included. Sixty-nine studies were analyzed, which included 9,298 women with 9,884 breast lesions. Interrater overall agreement between breast MR and paraffin section diagnosis was 79% (κ = 0.55), indicating moderate agreement. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90% [95% CI 88–92%] and 75% [95% CI 70–79%], respectively. The pooled likelihood positive ratio was 3.64 (95% CI 3.0–4.2) and the negative ratio was 0.12 (95% CI 0.09–0.15). For breast cancer or high-risk lesions versus benign lesions, the AUC was 0.91 for breast MR and the point Q* was 0.84. In summary, breast MR is a useful pre-operative test for predicting the diagnosis of breast lesions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chatterji M, Mercado CL, Moy L (2010) Optimizing 1.5 Tesla and 3-Tesla dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breasts. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 18:207–224

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B, Decker T, Federico M, Gilbert FJ, Helbich T, Heywang-Köbrunner SH, Kaiser WA, Kerin MJ, Mansel RE, Marotti L, Martincich L, Mauriac L, Meijers-Heijboer H, Orecchia R, Panizza P, Ponti A, Purushotham AD, Regitnig P, Del Turco MR, Thibault F, Wilson R (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer 46:1296–1316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lee CH, Dershaw D, Kopans D, Evans P, Monsees B, Monticciolo D, Brenner RJ, Bassett L, Berg W, Feig S, Hendrick E, Mendelson E, D’Orsi C, Sickles E, Burhenne LW (2010) Breast cancer screening with imaging recommendations from the society of breast imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 7:18–27

    Google Scholar 

  4. Liberman L, Morris EA, Joo-Young Lee M, Kaplan JB, LaTrenta LR, Menell JH, Abramson AF, Dashnaw SM, Ballon DJ, Dershaw DJ (2002) Breast lesions detected on MR imaging: features and positive predictive value. AJR 179:171–178

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Linda A, Zuiani C, Bazzochi M, Furlan A, Londero V (2008) Borderline breast lesions diagnose at core needle biopsy: can magnetic resonance mammography rule out associated malignancy? Preliminary results bases on 79 surgically excised lesion. Breast 17:125–131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Simmons RM, Osborne MP (2009) The evaluation of high risk and pre-invasive breast lesions and the decision process for follow up and surgical intervention. Surg Oncol 8:55–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Houssami N, Ciatto S, Bilous M, Vezzosi V, Bianchi S (2007) Borderline breast core needle histology: predictive values for malignancy in lesions of uncertain malignant potencial (B3). Br J Cancer 96:1253–1257

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Sydnor MK, Wilson JD, Hijaz TA, Massey HD, Shaw de Paredes ES (2001) Underestimation of the presence of breast carcinoma in papillary lesions initially diagnosed at core-needle biopsy. Radiology 242(1):58–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bilous M (2008) Management of lesions of uncertain malignant potential on breast core needle histology: vacuum-assisted excision as an alternative to surgical excision. Breast 17:543–544

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Whiting P, Weswood ME, Rutjes A, Reittsma JB, Bossuyt P, Kleijnen J (2006) The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 6:9–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Reitsma JB, Rujes AW, Whiting P, Vlassov VV, Leeflang MM, Deeks JJ (2009) Assessing methodological quality, chap 9. In: Deek JJ, Bossuyt PM, Gatsonis C (eds) Cochrane handbook for systematic review of diagnostic test accuracy. Version 1.0.0. The Cochrane Collaboration 2009. htpp://srdta.cochrane.org/en/authors.html. Accessed July 19 2010

  12. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, Lijmer JG, Moher D, Rennie D, de Vet HC (2003) Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Ann Intern Med 138:40–45

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Altman DG (1999) Some common problems in medical research. In: Altman DG (ed) Practical statistics for medical research, 9th edn. Chapman, London, pp 396–439

    Google Scholar 

  14. Schlesselman JJ, Stolley PD (1982) Csse control studies. Design, conduct, analysis. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 174–177

    Google Scholar 

  15. Irwig L, Tosteson AN, Gatsonis C, Lau J, Colditz G, Chalmers TC et al (1994) Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Ann Intern Med 120:667–676

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AWS, Scholten R, Bossuy PM, Zwinderman AH (2005) Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produce informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 58:982–990

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Littenberg B, Moses LE (1993) Estimating diagnostic accuracy from multiple conflicting reports. Med Decis Making 13:313–321

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B (1993) Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data analytic approaches and some considerations. Stat Med 12:1293–1316

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Deeks JJ (2001) Systematic reviews of evaluation of diagnostic and screening tests. In: Egger M, Smith GD, Altman D (eds) Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context, 2nd edn. BMJ Publishing, London, pp 248–282

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gatsonis C, Paliwal P (2006) Meta-analysis of diagnostic and screening test accuracy evaluations: methodologic primer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:271–281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Leeflang MM, Deeks JJ, Gatsonis C, Bossuyt PM (2008) Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Working Group. Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Ann Intern Med 149:889–897

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Jellema P, van der Windt DA, Bruinvels DJ, Kneepkens CM, van der Horst HE (2010) Value of symptoms and additional diagnostic tests for colorectal cancer in primary care. BMJ 340:c1269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. van der Windt D, Jellema P, Mulder C, Kneepkens F, van der Hors H (2010) Diagnostic testing for celiac disease among patients with abdominal symptoms. JAMA 303:1738–1746

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB (2000) Diagnosis and screening. In: Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB (eds) Evidence-base medicine: how to practice and teach EBM, 3rd edn. Churchill Livingstone, London, England, pp 67–93

    Google Scholar 

  25. AV Zamora J, Muriel A, Khan KS, Coomarasamy A (2006) Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol 6:31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program] (2008) Version 5.0. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration

  27. Stata Corporation (2009) Stata Statistical Software version 11. Stata Corporation, College Station, TX

  28. Abdolmaleki P, Buadu LD, Naderimansh H (2001) Feature extraction and classification of breast cancer on dynamic magnetic resonance imaging using artificial network. Cancer Lett 171:183–191

    Google Scholar 

  29. Alamo L, Fisher U (2001) Contrast-enhanced color Doppler ultrasound characteristics in hypervacular breast tumors: comparison with MRI. Eur Radiol 11:970–977

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Bagni B, Francescheto A, Casolo A, De Santis M, Bagni I, Pansini F, Di Leo C (2003) Scintimammography with 99mTc-MIBI and magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 30:1383–1388

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Bazzocchi M, Zuiani C, Panizza P, Del Frate C, Soldano F, Isola M, Sardanelli F, Giusepptti GM, Simonetu G, Lattazio V, Del Maschio AD (2006) Contrast-enhanced breast MRI in patients with suspicious microcalcifications on mammography: results of multicenter trial. Am J Roentgenol 186:1723–1732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Berge WA, Gutierrez L, Nessaiver MS, Carter WB, Bhargavan M, Lewis RS, Ioffe OB (2004) Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology 233:830–849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Blohmer JU, Oellinger H, Schmidt C, Hufnagl P, Felix R, Lictenegger W (1999) Comparison of various imaging methods with particular evaluation of color Doppler sonography for planning surgery for breast tumors. Arch Gynecol Obstet 262:159–171

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Bluemke DA, Gatsonis CA, Chen MH, DeAngelis GA, DeBruhl N, Harms S, Heywang-Köbrunner SH, Hylton N, Kuhl CK, Lehman C, Pisano ED, Causer P, Schnitt SJ, Smazal SF, Stelling CB, Weatherall PT, Schnall MD (2004) Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy. JAMA 292:2735–2742

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Boetes C, Barentsz JO, Mus RD, van der Sluis RF, van Erning L, Hendriks JH, Holland (1994) MR characterization of suspicious breast lesions with a gadolinium-enhanced turboFLASH subtraction technique. Radiology 193:777–781

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Boetes C, Strijk SP, Barentsz JO, van der Sluis RF, Ruijs JH (1997) False-negative MR imaging of malignant breast tumors. Eur Radiol 7:1231–1234

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Boné B, Aspelin P, Bronge L, Isberg B, Perbeck L, Veress B (1996) Sensitivity and specificity of MR mammography with histopathological correlation in 250 breasts. Acta Radiol 37:208–213

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Boné B, Péntek Z, Perbeck L, Veress B (1997) Diagnostic accuracy of mammography and contrast-enhanced MR imaging in 238 histologically verified breast lesions. Acta Radiol 38:489–496

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Buadu LD, Murakami J, Murakami S, Hashiguchi N, Sakai S, Masuda K, Toyoshima S, Kuroki S, Ohno S (1996) Breast lesions: correlations of contrast medium enhancement patterns on MR images with histopatologic findings and tumor angiogenesis. Radiology 200:639–649

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Cecil KM, Schanall MD, Siegelman ES, Lenkinski RE (2001) The evaluation of human breast lesions with magnetic resonance imaging and proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 68:45–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Choi N, Han B, Choe TH, Kim HS (2005) Three-phase dynamic breast magnetic resonance imaging with two-way subtraction. J Comput Assist Tomogr 29:834–841

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Cilotti A, Iacconi C, Marini C, Moreti M, Mazzotta D, Traino C, Naccarato AG, Piagneri V, Giaconi C, Bevilaqua G, Bartolozzi C (2007) Contrast-enhanced MR imaging in patients with BI-RADS 3–5 microcalcifications. Radiol Med 112:272–286

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Daldrup H, Rydland J, Helbich TH, Bjornerud A, Turetschek K, Kvistad KA, Kaindl E, Link TM, Staudacher K, Shames D, Brasch RC, Haraldseth O, Rummeny EJ (2003) Quantification of breast tumor microvascular permeability with feruglose-enhanced MR imaging: initial Phase II multicenter trial. Radiology 229:885–892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Daniel BL, Yen YF, Glover HG, Ikeda DM, Birdwell RL, Sawyer-Glover AM, Black JW, Black JW, Plevritis SK, Jeffrey SS, Herfkens RJ (1998) Breast disease:dynamic spiral MR imaging. Radiology 209:499–509

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Dietzel M, Baltzer PA, Vag T, Herzog A, Gajda M, Camara O, Kaiser WA (2010) The adjacent vessel sign on breast MRI: new data and subgroup analysis for 1084 histologically verified cases. Korean J Radiol 11:178–186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E (1999) Breast carcinoma:effect of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging on the therapeutic approach. Radiology 213:881–888

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Fisher DR, Baltzer P, Malich A, Wurdinger S, Freesmeyer MG, Marx C, Kaiser WA (2004) Is the “blooming sign” a promising additional tool to determine malignancy in MR mammography? Eur Radiol 14:394–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Fobben ES, Rubin CZ, Kalisher L, Dembner AG, Seltzer MH, Santoro EJ (1995) Breast MR imaging with commercially available techniques: radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 196:143–152

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Gatzemeier W, Liersch T, Stylianou A, Buttler A, Becker H, Fisher U (1999) Präoperative MR-mammographie beim mammacarcinom. Sicht Der Chirurg 70:1460–1468

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Gibbs P, Liney GP, Lowry M, Kneedhaw PJ, Turnbull LW (2004) Differentiation of benign and malignant sub-1 cm breast lesions using dynamic contrast enhanced MRI. Breast 13:115–121

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Gilles R, Meunier M, Lucidarme O, Zafrani B, Guinebretière JM, Tardivon AA, Le Gal M, Vanel D, Neuenschwander S, Cl Arriagada R (1996) Clustered breast microcalcifications: evaluation by dynamic contrast-enhanced subtraction. MRI J Comput Assit Tomogr 20:9–14

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Goto M, Ito H, Akazawa K, Kubota T, Kizu O, Yamada K, Nishimura T (2007) Diagnosis of breast tumors by contrast-enhanced MR imaging: comparison between the diagnostic performance of dynamic enhancement patterns and morphologic features. J Magn Reson Imaging 25:104–112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Harms SE, Flamig DP, Hesley KL, Meiches MD, Jensen RA, Evans WP, Savino DA, Wells RV (1993) MR imaging of the breast with rotating delivery of excitation off resonance clinical experience with pathologic correlation. Radiology 187:493–501

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Heiberg EV, Perman WH, Herrmann VM, Janney CG (1996) Dyamic sequential 3D gadolinium-enhanced MRI of the whole breast. Magnet Reson Imaging 14:337–348

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Heinisch M, Gallowitsch HJ, Mikosch P, Kresnik E, Kumnig G, Gomez I, Lind P, Umschaden HW, Gasser J, Forsthuber EP (2003) Comparison of FDG-PET and dynamic contast-enhanced MRI in the evaluation of suggestive breast lesions. Breast 12:17–22

    Google Scholar 

  56. Helbich TH, Becherer A, Trattnig S, Leitha T, Kelkar P, Seifert M, Gnant M, Staudenhererz A, Rudas M, Wolf G, Mostbeck GH (1997) Differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: MR imaging versus Tc-99 m sestamibi scintimammography. Radiology 202:421–429

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Hickmann PF, Moore NR, Shepstone BJ (1994) The indeterminate breast mass: assessment using contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Br J Radiol 67:14–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Huang W, Fisher PR, Dulaimy K, Tudorica LA, O’Hea B, Button TM (2004) Detection of breast malignancy: diagnostic MR protocol for improved specificity. Radiology 232(2):585–591

    Google Scholar 

  59. Hulka CA, Edmister WB, Smith BL, Tan L, Sgroi DC, Camphell T, Kopans D (1997) Dynamic echo-planar imaging of the breast: experience in diagnosing breast carcinoma and correlation with tumor angiogenesis. Radiology 205:837–842

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Ikeda O, Yamashita Y, Morishita S, Kido T, Kitajima M, Okamura K, Fukuda S, Takahashi (1999) Characterization of breast masses by dynamic enhancer. MR Imaging Acta Radiol 40:585–592

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Jacobs MA, Barker PB, Bluemke DA, Maranto C, Arnold C, Herskovits EH, Bhujwalla Z (2003) Benign and malignant breast lesions: diagnosis with multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology 229:225–232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Kelcz F, Furman-Haran E, Grobgeld D, Degani H (2002) Clinical testing of high-spatial resolution parametric contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast. Am J Roentgenol 179:1485–1492

    Google Scholar 

  63. Khouli RE, Macura KJ, Jacobs MA, Khalil TH, Kamel IR, Kamel IR, Dwyer A, Bluemke DA (2009) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI oh the breast: quantitative method for kinetic curve type assessment. Am J Roentgenol 193:W295–W300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Kinkel K, Helbich TH, Esserman LJ, Barclay J, Schwerin EH, Sickles EA, Hylton NM (2000) Dynamic high-apatial-resolution MR imaging of suspicious breast lesion: diagnostic criteria and interobserver variability. Am J Roentgenol 175:35–43

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik P, Leutner C, Wardelmann E, Gieseke J, Schild HH (1999) Dynamic breast MR imaging are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 211:101–110

    Google Scholar 

  66. Liu PF, Debatin JF, Caduff RF, Kacl G, Garzoli E, Krestin GP (1998) Improved diagnostic accuracy in dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of the breast by combined quantitative and qualitative analysis. Br J Radiol 71:501–509

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Lucht RE, Knopp MV, Brix G (2001) Classification of signal-time curves from dynamic MR mammography by neural networks. Magn Reson Imaging 19:51–57

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Morris EA, Liberman L, Dershaw DD, Kaplan JB, LaTrenta LR, Abramson AF, Ballon DJ (2002) Preoperative MR imaging-guided needle localization of breast lesion. Am J Roentgenol 178:1211–1220

    Google Scholar 

  69. Moy L, Elias K, Patel V, Lee J, Babb JS, Toth HK, Mercado CL (2009) Is breast MRI helpful in the evaluation of inconclusive mammographic findings? Am J Roentgenol 193:986–993

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Nakahara H, Namba K, Fukami A, Watanabe R, Maeda Y, Furusawa H, Matsu T, Akiyama F, Nakagawa H, Ifuku H, Nakahara M (2001) Three-dimensional MR imaging of mammogaphically detected suspicious microcalcifications. Breast Cancer 8:116–124

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Nakano S, Yoshida M, Fujii K, Yorozuya K, Mouri Y, Kousaka, Fukutomi T, Kimura J, Ishiguchi T, Ohno K, Mizumoto T, Harao M (2009) Fusion of MRI and sonography image for breast cancer evaluation using real-time virtual sonography with magnetic navigation: first experience. Jpn J Clin Oncol 39:552–559

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Newel D, Nie K, Chen JH, Hsu CC, Yu HJ, Nalcioglu O, Su MY (2010) Selection of diagnostic features on breast MRI to differentiate between malignant and benign lesions using computer-aided diagnosis: differences in lesions presenting as mass and non-mass-like enhancement. Eur Radiol 20:771–781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Nunes LW, Schnall MD, Orel SG (2001) Update of breast MR imaging architectural interpretation model Radiology 219:484–494

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Obdeijn IM, Kuijpers TA, van Dijk P, Wiggers T, Oudkerk M (1996) MR lesion detection in a breast cancer population. J Magn Reson Imaging 6:849–854

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Orel SG, Schnall M, Powell C, Hochman M, Solin LJ, Fowble BL, Torosian Rosato EF (1995) Staging of suspected breast cancer: effect of MR imaging and MR-guide biopsy. Radiology 196:115–122

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Palmedo H, Grünwald F, Bender H, Schomburg A, Mallmann P, Krebs D, Biersack HJ (1996) Scintimammography with technetium-99 m methoxyisobutylisonitrile: comparison with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Nucl Med 23:940–946

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Partridge SC, Mullins CD, Kurland BF, Allain MD, DeMartini WB, Eby PR, Lehman CD (2010) Apparent diffusion coefficient values for discriminating benign and malignant breast MRI lesions: effects of lesion type and size. Am J Roentgenol 194:1664–1673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Pediconi F, Catalano C, Roselli A, Dominelli V, Cagioli S, Karatasiou A, Pronio AM, Kirchin AM (2009) The challenge of imaging dense breast parenchyma. Invest Radiol 44:412–421

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Reinikainen H, Pääkkö E, Suramo I, Päivänsalo M, Jauhiainen J, Rissanen T (2002) Dynamics of contrast enhancement in MR imaging and Power Doppler ultrasonography of solid breast lesions. Acta Radiol 43:492–500

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Sardanelli F, Lozzeli A, Fausto A, Carriero A, Kirchin MA (2005) Gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MR imaging breast vascular maps: association between invasive cancer and ipsilateral increased vascularity. Radiology 235:791–797

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Schedel H, Oellinger H, Kohlschein P, Siewert C, Hadjuana J, Blohmer JU, Kissner T, Felix R (2002) Magnetic resonance female breast imaging—evaluation of the changes in signal intensity over time pre- and post-administration of 0, 2 mmol/kg Gd-DTPA. Zentralbi Gynakol 124:104–110

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Schmitz AC, Peters NG, Gallardo FAM, van Diest PJ, Stapper G, van Hillegersberg R, Mali WP, van den Bosch MA (2008) Contrast-enhanced 3.0-T breast MRI for characterization of breast lesions: increased specificity by using vascular maps. Eur Radiol 18:355–364

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Sherif H, Mahfouz AE, Oellinger H, Hadijuana J, Blohmer JU, Taupitz, Felix R, Hamm B (1997) Peripheral washout sign on contrast-enhanced MR images of the Breast. Radiology 205:209–213

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Siegmann KC, Xydeas T, Sinkus R, Kraemer B, Vogel U, Claussen CD (2010) Diagnostic value of MR elastography in addition to contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast—initial clinical results. Eur Radiol 20:318–325

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Sinha S, Lucas-Quesada FA, DeBruhi N, Sayre J, Farria D, Gorczyca DP, Bassett LW (1997) Multifeature analysis of Gd-enhanced MR images of Breast Lesions. J Magn Reson Imaging 7:1016–1026

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Sivarajan U, Jayapragasam KJ, Aziz A, Rahmat K, Bux SI (2009) Dynamic contrast enhancement magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of breast lesions: a morphological and quantitative analysis. J HK Coll Radiol 12:43–52

    Google Scholar 

  87. Stomper PC, Herman S, Klippenstein DL, Winston JS, Edge SB, Arredondo MA, Mazurchuk RV, Blumenson LE (1995) Suspect breast lesions: findings at dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging correlated with mammographic and pathologic features. Radiology 197:387–395

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Tiling R, Khalkhali I, Sommer H, Linke R, Moser R, Willemsen F, Pfluger T, Tatsch Hahn K (1998) Limited value of scintimammography and contrast-enhanced MRI in the evaluation of microcalcification detecded by mammography. Nucl Med Commun 19:55–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Trecate G, Tess JD, Vergnaghi D, Bergonzi S, de Simone T, Mariani G, Musumeci R (2002) Breast microcalcifications studied with 3d contrast-enhanced high field magnectic resonance imaging: more accuracy in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Tumori 88:224–233

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Turkat TJ, Klein BD, Polan R, Richman R. Dynamic MR (1994) Mammography: a technique for potentially reducing the biopsy rate for benign breast disease. J Magn Reson Imaging 4:563–568

    Google Scholar 

  91. Vassiou K, Kanavou T, Vlychou M, Poultsidi A, Athanasiou E, Arvanitis DL, Fezoulidis IV (2009) Characterization of breast lesions with CE-MR multimodal morphological and kinetic analysis: comparison with conventional mammography and high-resolution ultrasound. Eur J Radiol 70:69–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Wiberg MK, Aspelin P, Perbeck L, Boné B (2002) Value of MR imaging in clinical evaluation of breast lesion. Acta Radiol 43:275–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Wurdinger S, Kamprath S, Eschrich D, Schneider A, Kaiser WA (2001) False-negative findings of malignant breast lesions on preoperative magnetic resonance mammography. Breast 10:131–139

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Yabuuchi H, Matsuo Y, Kamitani T, Setoguchi T, Okafuji T, Soeda H, Sakai S, Hatakenaka M, Kubo M, Tokunaga E, Yamamoto H, Honda H (2010) Non-mass-like enhancement on contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging: lesion characterization using combination of dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR images. Eur J Radiol 75:e126–e132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Zhu J, Kurihara Y, Kanemaki Y, Ogata H, Fukuda M, Nakajima Y, Maeda I (2007) Diagnostic accuracy of high-resolution MRI using a microscopy coil for patients with presumed DCIS following mammography screening. J Magn Reson Imaging 25:96–103

    Google Scholar 

  96. Houssami N, Ciatto S, Macaskill P, Lord S, Warren RM, Dixon JM, Irwig L (2008) Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer. J Clin Oncol 26:3248–3258

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Hrung JM, Sonnad SS, Schwartz S, Langlotz CP (1999) Accuracy of MR imaging in the work-up of suspicious breast lesions: a diagnostic meta-analysis. Acad Radiol 6:387–397

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. Warner E, Messersmith H, Causer P, Eisen A, Shumak R, Plewes D (2008) Systematic review: using magnetic resonance imaging to screen women at high risk for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 148:671–679

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Peters NH, Rinkes IH, Zuithorff N, Mali W, Moons K, Peeters P (2008) Meta-analysis of MR imaging in the diagnosis of breast lesions. Radiology 246:116–124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Yeh ED (2010) Breast magnetic resonance imaging: current clinical indications. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 18:155–169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Goscin C, Berman CG, Clark RA (2001). Magnectic resonance imaging of the breast. Cancer Control 8:399–405

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support received from the University of Extremo Sul Catarinense.

Conflict of interest

Authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Postgraduate Program in Medicine, Medical Sciences at Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil

    Lidia Rosi Medeiros, Daniela Dornelles Rosa & Maria Isabel Edelweiss

  2. Laboratory of Epidemiology and National Institute for Translational Medicine Health Sciences Unit, University of Extremo Sul Catarinense (UNESC), Rua Cruz e Souza, 510. Bairro Pio Correa-CEP, 88811-550, Criciúma, SC, Brazil

    Célia Scapin Duarte, Fábio Rosa Silva, Erik Paul Winnnikow, Patrícia Duarte Simões Pires & Maria Inês Rosa

  3. Postgraduate Program in Health Sciences, UNESC, Criciúma, Brazil

    Célia Scapin Duarte, Erik Paul Winnnikow, Patrícia Duarte Simões Pires & Maria Inês Rosa

  4. Oncology Unit, Hospital Fêmina, Grupo Hospitalar Conceição, Porto Alegre, Brazil

    Daniela Dornelles Rosa

  5. Pathology Unit of Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil

    Maria Isabel Edelweiss

  6. Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA

    Marcia Edelweiss

Authors
  1. Lidia Rosi Medeiros
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Célia Scapin Duarte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniela Dornelles Rosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maria Isabel Edelweiss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marcia Edelweiss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Fábio Rosa Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Erik Paul Winnnikow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Patrícia Duarte Simões Pires
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Maria Inês Rosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Inês Rosa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Medeiros, L.R., Duarte, C.S., Rosa, D.D. et al. Accuracy of magnetic resonance in suspicious breast lesions: a systematic quantitative review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 126, 273–285 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-010-1326-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-010-1326-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation