TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced breast MRI and gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced breast MRI with mammography and ultrasound for the detection of breast cancer
AU - Gilbert, Fiona J.
AU - Van Den Bosch, Harrie C M
AU - Petrillo, Antonella
AU - Siegmann, Katja
AU - Heverhagen, Johannes T.
AU - Panizza, Pietro
AU - Gehl, Hans Björn
AU - Pediconi, Federica
AU - Diekmann, Felix
AU - Peng, Wei Jun
AU - Ma, Lin
AU - Sardanelli, Francesco
AU - Belli, Paolo
AU - Corcione, Stefano
AU - Zechmann, Christian M.
AU - Faivre-Pierret, Matthieu
AU - Martincich, Laura
PY - 2014
Y1 - 2014
N2 - Purpose To compare gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI, mammography, and ultrasound for breast cancer detection across different malignant lesion types and across different densities of breast tissue. Materials and Methods In all, 153 women with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 3-5 findings on mammography and/or ultrasound underwent identical breast MRI exams at 1.5T with gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine. Images were evaluated by three independent blinded radiologists. Mammography, ultrasound, and combined mammography and/or ultrasound findings were available for 108, 109, and 131 women. Imaging findings were matched with histology data by a fourth, independent, blinded radiologist. Malignant lesion detection rates and diagnostic performance were compared. Results In all, 120, 120, and 140 confirmed malignant lesions were present in patients undergoing MRI+mammography, MRI+ultrasound, and MRI+mammography and/or ultrasound, respectively. Significantly greater cancer detection rates were noted by all three readers for comparisons of gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI with mammography (Δ15.8-17.5%; P <0.0001), ultrasound (Δ18.3-20.0%; P <0.0001), and mammography and/or ultrasound (Δ8.6-10.7%; P ≤ 0.0105) but not for comparisons of gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI with conventional techniques (P > 0.05). The false-positive detection rates were lower on gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI than on conventional imaging (4.0-5.5% vs. 11.1% at mammography; 6.3-8.4% vs. 15.5% at ultrasound). Significantly improved cancer detection on MRI was noted in heterogeneously dense breast (91.2-97.3% on gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI vs. 77.2-84.9% on gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI vs. 71.9-84.9% with conventional techniques) and for invasive cancers (93.2-96.2% for invasive ductal carcinoma [IDC] on gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI vs. 79.7-88.5% on gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI vs. 77.0-84.4% with conventional techniques). Overall diagnostic performance for the detection of cancer was superior on gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI than on conventional imaging or gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI. Conclusion Gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI significantly improves cancer detection compared to gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI, mammography, and ultrasound in a selected group of patients undergoing breast MRI for preoperative staging or because of inconclusive findings at conventional imaging. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2014;39:1272-1286. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
AB - Purpose To compare gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI, mammography, and ultrasound for breast cancer detection across different malignant lesion types and across different densities of breast tissue. Materials and Methods In all, 153 women with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 3-5 findings on mammography and/or ultrasound underwent identical breast MRI exams at 1.5T with gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine. Images were evaluated by three independent blinded radiologists. Mammography, ultrasound, and combined mammography and/or ultrasound findings were available for 108, 109, and 131 women. Imaging findings were matched with histology data by a fourth, independent, blinded radiologist. Malignant lesion detection rates and diagnostic performance were compared. Results In all, 120, 120, and 140 confirmed malignant lesions were present in patients undergoing MRI+mammography, MRI+ultrasound, and MRI+mammography and/or ultrasound, respectively. Significantly greater cancer detection rates were noted by all three readers for comparisons of gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI with mammography (Δ15.8-17.5%; P <0.0001), ultrasound (Δ18.3-20.0%; P <0.0001), and mammography and/or ultrasound (Δ8.6-10.7%; P ≤ 0.0105) but not for comparisons of gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI with conventional techniques (P > 0.05). The false-positive detection rates were lower on gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI than on conventional imaging (4.0-5.5% vs. 11.1% at mammography; 6.3-8.4% vs. 15.5% at ultrasound). Significantly improved cancer detection on MRI was noted in heterogeneously dense breast (91.2-97.3% on gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI vs. 77.2-84.9% on gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI vs. 71.9-84.9% with conventional techniques) and for invasive cancers (93.2-96.2% for invasive ductal carcinoma [IDC] on gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI vs. 79.7-88.5% on gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI vs. 77.0-84.4% with conventional techniques). Overall diagnostic performance for the detection of cancer was superior on gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI than on conventional imaging or gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI. Conclusion Gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI significantly improves cancer detection compared to gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI, mammography, and ultrasound in a selected group of patients undergoing breast MRI for preoperative staging or because of inconclusive findings at conventional imaging. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2014;39:1272-1286. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
KW - breast cancer
KW - gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI
KW - mammography
KW - ultrasound
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84898445448&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84898445448&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/jmri.24434
DO - 10.1002/jmri.24434
M3 - Article
C2 - 25006633
AN - SCOPUS:84898445448
SN - 1053-1807
VL - 39
SP - 1272
EP - 1286
JO - Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
JF - Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
IS - 5
ER -