Sensitivity and specificity of unenhanced MR mammography (DWI combined with T2-weighted TSE imaging, ueMRM) for the differentiation of mass lesions
Sensitivity and specificity of unenhanced MR mammography (DWI combined with T2-weighted TSE imaging, ueMRM) for the differentiation of mass lesions
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s00330-009-1654-5
复制
发表时间：
2010-05-01
影响因子：
5.9
通讯作者：
Kaiser, Werner A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Baltzer, Pascal A. T.;Benndorf, Matthias;Kaiser, Werner A.
本研究旨在评估DWI结合T2加权成像诊断恶性和良性肿块病变的敏感性和特异性（unenhanced MR mammography，ueMRM），并将结果与对比增强MR mammography（ceMRM）进行比较。（对比增强T1加权、T2加权和DWI序列）符合本回顾性研究的要求。两名设盲观察员首先根据BIRADS量表评定ueMRM，然后评定ceMRM。本研究共检查了81个病灶（良性27个，恶性54个）。ueMRM的敏感性分别为93%（观察者1）和86%（观察者2）。ceMRM的灵敏度为96.5%（观察者1）和98.3%（观察者2）。两名观察员的特异性分别为85.2%（ueMRM）和92.6%（ceMRM）。两种方法和观察者之间的差异均不显著（P <0.09）。病变大小的测量没有显着差异，所有序列分析。无论是良性病变（P < 0.001）还是恶性病变（P = 0.004），ueMRM对肿瘤的可见性均较差，对肿块的敏感性和特异性与ceMRM相当。然而，在ueMRM中病变可见性降低可能导致更多的假阴性结果。
This study was performed to assess the sensitivity and specificity for malignant and benign mass lesions of a diagnostic approach combining DWI with T2-weighted images (unenhanced MR mammography, ueMRM) and compare the results with contrast-enhanced MR mammography (ceMRM).Consecutive patients undergoing histopathological verification of mass lesions after MR mammography without prior breast interventions (contrast-enhanced T1-weighted, T2-weighted and DWI sequences) were eligible for this retrospective investigation. Two blinded observers first rated ueMRM and then ceMRM according to the BIRADS scale. Lesion size, ADC values and T2-weighted TSE descriptors were assessed.This study examined 81 lesions (27 benign, 54 malignant). Sensitivity of ueMRM was 93% (observer 1) and 86% (observer 2), respectively. Sensitivity of ceMRM was 96.5% (observer 1) and 98.3% (observer 2). Specificity was 85.2% (ueMRM) and 92.6% (ceMRM) for both observers. The differences between both methods and observers were not significant (P a parts per thousand yenaEuro parts per thousand 0.09). Lesion size measurements did not differ significantly among all sequences analyzed. Tumor visibility was worse using ueMRM for both benign (P < 0.001) and malignant lesions (P = 0.004).Sensitivity and specificity of ueMRM in mass lesions equal that of ceMRM. However, a reduced lesion visibility in ueMRM may lead to more false-negative findings.