Feasibility, Image Quality and Clinical Evaluation of Contrast-Enhanced Breast MRI Performed in a Supine Position Compared to the Standard Prone Position.
breast cancer
breast conserving therapy
comparative studies
local failure
magnetic resonance imaging
Journal
Cancers
ISSN: 2072-6694
Titre abrégé: Cancers (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101526829
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 Aug 2020
21 Aug 2020
Historique:
received:
03
07
2020
revised:
12
08
2020
accepted:
19
08
2020
entrez:
23
8
2020
pubmed:
23
8
2020
medline:
23
8
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To assess the feasibility, image quality and diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) performed in a supine compared to a prone position. One hundred and fifty-one patients who had undergone a breast MRI in both the standard prone and supine position were evaluated retrospectively. Two 1.5 T MR scanners were used with the same image resolution, sequences and contrast medium in all examinations. The image quality and the number and dimensions of lesions were assessed by two expert radiologists in an independent and randomized fashion. Two different classification systems were used. Histopathology was the standard of reference. Two hundred and forty MRIs from 120 patients were compared. The analysis revealed 134 MRIs with monofocal (U), 68 with multifocal (M) and 38 with multicentric (C) lesions. There was no difference between the image quality and number of lesions in the prone and supine examinations. A significant difference in the lesion extension was observed between the prone and supine position. No significant differences emerged in the classification of the lesions detected in the prone compared to the supine position. It is possible to perform breast MRI in a supine position with the same image quality, resolution and diagnostic value as in a prone position. In the prone position, the lesion dimensions are overestimated with a higher wash-in peak than in the supine position.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To assess the feasibility, image quality and diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) performed in a supine compared to a prone position.
METHODS
METHODS
One hundred and fifty-one patients who had undergone a breast MRI in both the standard prone and supine position were evaluated retrospectively. Two 1.5 T MR scanners were used with the same image resolution, sequences and contrast medium in all examinations. The image quality and the number and dimensions of lesions were assessed by two expert radiologists in an independent and randomized fashion. Two different classification systems were used. Histopathology was the standard of reference.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Two hundred and forty MRIs from 120 patients were compared. The analysis revealed 134 MRIs with monofocal (U), 68 with multifocal (M) and 38 with multicentric (C) lesions. There was no difference between the image quality and number of lesions in the prone and supine examinations. A significant difference in the lesion extension was observed between the prone and supine position. No significant differences emerged in the classification of the lesions detected in the prone compared to the supine position.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
It is possible to perform breast MRI in a supine position with the same image quality, resolution and diagnostic value as in a prone position. In the prone position, the lesion dimensions are overestimated with a higher wash-in peak than in the supine position.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32825583
pii: cancers12092364
doi: 10.3390/cancers12092364
pmc: PMC7564182
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Radiology. 2007 Aug;244(2):356-78
pubmed: 17641361
Biomed Res Int. 2018 May 16;2018:9032408
pubmed: 30140703
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1986 Mar-Apr;10(2):199-204
pubmed: 3950145
Eur J Radiol. 2014 Jun;83(6):942-950
pubmed: 24725672
Biomed Res Int. 2018 Oct 21;2018:3896946
pubmed: 30420960
Clin Breast Cancer. 2018 Aug;18(4):261-269
pubmed: 28774783
Radiology. 2014 Nov;273(2):401-9
pubmed: 25119022
Eur Radiol. 2019 Apr;29(4):1799-1808
pubmed: 30324386
J Am Coll Radiol. 2010 Jan;7(1):18-27
pubmed: 20129267
Med Eng Phys. 2008 Nov;30(9):1089-97
pubmed: 18329940
BMC Bioinformatics. 2020 Mar 11;21(Suppl 2):91
pubmed: 32164532
Eur Radiol. 2002 May;12(5):1087-92
pubmed: 11976850
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017 Jun;208(6):1400-1409
pubmed: 28267361
J Med Radiat Sci. 2018 Dec;65(4):300-310
pubmed: 30076690
Ann Surg Oncol. 2017 Oct;24(10):2950-2956
pubmed: 28766199
Eur J Radiol. 2012 Sep;81 Suppl 1:S36-40
pubmed: 23083595
Radiology. 2016 Dec;281(3):720-729
pubmed: 27332738
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016 Jan;206(1):217-25
pubmed: 26700355
Radiat Oncol. 2014 Feb 26;9:63
pubmed: 24571783
Breast Cancer. 2016 Jan;23(1):149-158
pubmed: 24913146
Arch Int Physiol Biochim. 1985 Dec;93(5):67-76
pubmed: 2424392
Front Biosci (Landmark Ed). 2017 Jan 1;22:570-579
pubmed: 27814633
Br J Radiol. 2016;89(1059):20150497
pubmed: 26689093
Eur Radiol. 2019 Mar;29(3):1435-1443
pubmed: 30120494
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2017 Dec;41(6):1478-1480
pubmed: 28799039
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2018 Jul;44(7):1364-1370
pubmed: 29653774
Phys Med. 2019 Aug;64:1-9
pubmed: 31515007