Abbreviated MRI for Preoperative Assessment of Breast Cancer: is Maximal Intensity Projection (MIP) of the First Post Contrast Acquisition Subtracted (Fast) Sequence Sufficient for Disease Evaluation?

Rami Hajri, Alexandre Ponti, Jean-Yves Meuwly, Sylvain Eminian, Jean-Baptiste Ledoux, Estelle Tenisch, Leonor Alamo-Maestre, Clarisse Dromain, Naïk Vietti Violi
{"title":"Abbreviated MRI for Preoperative Assessment of Breast Cancer: is Maximal Intensity Projection (MIP) of the First Post Contrast Acquisition Subtracted (Fast) Sequence Sufficient for Disease Evaluation?","authors":"Rami Hajri,&nbsp;Alexandre Ponti,&nbsp;Jean-Yves Meuwly,&nbsp;Sylvain Eminian,&nbsp;Jean-Baptiste Ledoux,&nbsp;Estelle Tenisch,&nbsp;Leonor Alamo-Maestre,&nbsp;Clarisse Dromain,&nbsp;Naïk Vietti Violi","doi":"10.26502/jcsct.5079184","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of abbreviated MRI (AMRI) using the maximal intensity projection (MIP) reconstruction of the first post-contrast acquisition subtracted (FAST) compared with MIP+FAST and full-protocol MRI (fpMRI) for the preoperative assessment of breast cancer (BC) in a biopsy-proven cancer population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this monocentric retrospective study, two readers consensually assessed two AMRI protocols consisting of MIP reconstruction of the FAST (MIP) and MIP+FAST. 228 patients were included with a breast MRI performed between 2013 and 2014, 207 of them (90.8%) had biopsy-proven cancer with 256 lesions. Data of MIP and MIP+FAST were compared to full-protocol MRI (fpMRI) reading and to the reference standard including 6-month follow-up imaging and pathology as the reference.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>MIP, MIP+FAST and fpMRI demonstrated a per-lesion sensitivity for BC detection of 87.5% (224/256, 95%CI: 82.9-91.3%) and 97.7% (250/256, 95-99.1%) and 98.4% (252/256, 96.1-99.6%), respectively with a statistical difference between MIP compared to MIP+FAST and fpMRI when considering confidence intervals. Per-lesion specificity was not different [MIP: 47.6% (10/21, 25.7-70.2%), MIP+FAST: 52.4% (11/21,29.8-74.3%, fpMRI: 66.7% (14/21, 43-85.4%)].</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>AMRI using only MIP is not accurate for the pre-operative assessment of BC due to lower sensitivity when compared to MIP+FAST and fpMRI. AMRI using the MIP+FAST acquisition in the preoperative setting seems promising as it could be used as the same protocol for both screening and staging in case of positive cases, without need for a recall fpMRI. This needs confirmation with cohort including higher rate of negative cases in order to evaluate the specificity.</p>","PeriodicalId":73634,"journal":{"name":"Journal of cancer science and clinical therapeutics","volume":"6 4","pages":"452-459"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10022524/pdf/nihms-1877666.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of cancer science and clinical therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26502/jcsct.5079184","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of abbreviated MRI (AMRI) using the maximal intensity projection (MIP) reconstruction of the first post-contrast acquisition subtracted (FAST) compared with MIP+FAST and full-protocol MRI (fpMRI) for the preoperative assessment of breast cancer (BC) in a biopsy-proven cancer population.

Methods: In this monocentric retrospective study, two readers consensually assessed two AMRI protocols consisting of MIP reconstruction of the FAST (MIP) and MIP+FAST. 228 patients were included with a breast MRI performed between 2013 and 2014, 207 of them (90.8%) had biopsy-proven cancer with 256 lesions. Data of MIP and MIP+FAST were compared to full-protocol MRI (fpMRI) reading and to the reference standard including 6-month follow-up imaging and pathology as the reference.

Results: MIP, MIP+FAST and fpMRI demonstrated a per-lesion sensitivity for BC detection of 87.5% (224/256, 95%CI: 82.9-91.3%) and 97.7% (250/256, 95-99.1%) and 98.4% (252/256, 96.1-99.6%), respectively with a statistical difference between MIP compared to MIP+FAST and fpMRI when considering confidence intervals. Per-lesion specificity was not different [MIP: 47.6% (10/21, 25.7-70.2%), MIP+FAST: 52.4% (11/21,29.8-74.3%, fpMRI: 66.7% (14/21, 43-85.4%)].

Conclusion: AMRI using only MIP is not accurate for the pre-operative assessment of BC due to lower sensitivity when compared to MIP+FAST and fpMRI. AMRI using the MIP+FAST acquisition in the preoperative setting seems promising as it could be used as the same protocol for both screening and staging in case of positive cases, without need for a recall fpMRI. This needs confirmation with cohort including higher rate of negative cases in order to evaluate the specificity.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
简化MRI用于乳腺癌术前评估:第一次造影后减(快速)序列的最大强度投影(MIP)是否足以用于疾病评估?
目的:本研究的目的是评估缩短MRI (AMRI)的诊断性能,使用最大强度投影(MIP)重建第一次对比后获取减影(FAST)与MIP+FAST和全方案MRI (fpMRI)在活检证实的癌症人群中对乳腺癌(BC)的术前评估。方法:在这项单中心回顾性研究中,两位读者一致评估了两种AMRI方案,包括MIP重建FAST (MIP)和MIP+FAST。在2013年至2014年期间,228例患者接受了乳房MRI检查,其中207例(90.8%)患有活检证实的癌症,共256个病变。将MIP和MIP+FAST数据与全方案MRI (fpMRI)读数和以6个月随访影像和病理为参照的参考标准进行比较。结果:MIP、MIP+FAST和fpMRI对每个病灶的BC检测灵敏度分别为87.5% (224/256,95%CI: 82.9-91.3%)、97.7%(250/256,95-99.1%)和98.4%(252/256,96.1-99.6%),考虑置信区间,MIP与MIP+FAST和fpMRI之间存在统计学差异。各病灶特异性无差异[MIP: 47.6% (10/ 22,25.7 -70.2%), MIP+FAST: 52.4% (11/ 22,29.8 -74.3%, fpMRI: 66.7%(14/ 22,43 -85.4%)]。结论:与MIP+FAST和fpMRI相比,仅使用MIP的AMRI在术前评估BC时灵敏度较低,因此不准确。在术前使用MIP+FAST采集的AMRI似乎很有希望,因为它可以作为相同的方案用于阳性病例的筛查和分期,而无需召回fpMRI。这需要在包含较高阴性病例率的队列中进行确认,以评估特异性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
CAR T-Cell Therapy in Cancer: Balancing Efficacy with Cardiac Toxicity Concerns. Individual-Level Factors that Contribute to Delayed Cervical Cancer Diagnosis among Patients in Kenya; A Hospital-Based Assessment. A Web Application for Predicting Drug Combination Efficacy Using Monotherapy Data and IDACombo. Biophysical and Biological Mechanisms of Tumor Treating Fields in Glioblastoma. Small-Cell Lung Cancer in a Cancer Center in Colombia
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1