Schnall, M.D., Blume, J., Bluemke, D.A., DeAngelis, G.A., DeBruhl, N., Harms, S., Heywang-K?brunner, S.H., Hylton, N., Kuhl, C.K., Pisano, E.D., Causer, P., Schnitt, S.J., Thickman, D., Stelling, C.B., Weatherall, P.T., Lehman, C. and Gatsonis, C.A. (2006) Diagnostic architectural and dynamic features at breast MR imaging: Multicenter study. Radiology, 238, 42-53. doi:10.1148/radiol.2381042117

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: Can semi-quantitative evaluation of uncertain (type II) time-intensity curves improve diagnosis in breast DCE-MRI?

  AUTHORS: Roberta Fusco, Salvatore Filice, Vincenza Granata, Ylenia Mandato, Annamaria Porto, Massimiliano D’Aiuto, Massimo Rinaldo, Maurizio Di Bonito, Mario Sansone, Carlo Sansone, Antonio Rotondo, Antonella Petrillo Petrillo

  KEYWORDS: Breast Cancer; Dynamic Contrast Enhanced-MRI; Time Intensity Curve; Tracer Kinetics; Semi-Quantitative Analysis

  JOURNAL NAME: Journal of Biomedical Science and Engineering, Vol.6 No.3A, March 29, 2013

  ABSTRACT: Objective/Background: Qualitative assessment of uncertain (type II) time-intensity curves (TICs) in breast DCE-MRI is problematic and operator dependent. The aim of this work is to evaluate if a semi-quantitative assessment of uncertain TICs could improve overall diagnostic performance. Methods: In this study 49 lesions from 44 patients were retrospectively analysed. Per each lesion one region-of-interest (ROI)- averaged TIC was qualitatively evaluated by two radiologists in consensus: all the ROIs resulted in type II (uncertain) TIC. The same TICs were semi-quantitatively re-classified on the basis of the difference between the signal intensities of the last-time-point and of the peak: this difference was classified according to two different cut-off ranges (±5% and ±3%). All patients were cytological or histological biopsy proven. Fisher test and McNemar test were performed to evaluate if results were statistically significant (p respectively while using ±5% were 58%, 96%, 94% and 68% respectively. Using the ±5% cut-off 26/28 (93%) TICs were correctly reclassified while using the ±3% cut-off 34/38 (90%) TICs were correctly reclassified (p