Can semi-quantitative evaluation of uncertain (type II) time-intensity curves improve diagnosis in breast DCE-MRI?
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
Department of Breast Surgery and Oncology, National Cancer Institute of Naples “Pascale Foundation”, Naples, Italy.
Department of Diagnostic and Laboratory Pathology, National Cancer Institute of Naples “Pascale Foundation”, Naples, Italy.
Department of Diagnostic Imaging, National Cancer Institute of Naples “Pascale Foundation”, Naples, Italy.
Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Second University of Naples (SUN), Naples, Italy.
Department of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, University “Federico II” of Naples, Naples, Italy.
DOI: 10.4236/jbise.2013.63A052   PDF   HTML   XML   4,205 Downloads   6,122 Views   Citations

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 < 0.05). Results: Using ±5% cut-off 16 TICs were reclassified as type III and 12 as type I while 21 were reclassified again as type II. Using ±3% 22 TICs were reclassified as type III and 16 as type I while 11 were reclassified again as type II. The semi-quantitative classification was compared to the histological-cytological results: the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values obtained with ±3% were 77%, 91%, 91% and 78% 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 < 0.05). Conclusions: Semi-quantitative methods in kinetic curve assessment on DCE-MRI could improve classification of qualitatively uncertain TICs, leading to a more accurate classification of suspicious breast lesions.

Share and Cite:

Fusco, R. , Filice, S. , Granata, V. , Mandato, Y. , Porto, A. , D’Aiuto, M. , Rinaldo, M. , Bonito, M. , Sansone, M. , Sansone, C. , Rotondo, A. and Petrillo, A. (2013) Can semi-quantitative evaluation of uncertain (type II) time-intensity curves improve diagnosis in breast DCE-MRI?. Journal of Biomedical Science and Engineering, 6, 418-425. doi: 10.4236/jbise.2013.63A052.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1] Ojeda-Fournier, H., Choe, K.A. and Mahoney, M.C. (2007) Recognizing and interpreting artifacts and pitfalls in MR imaging of the breast. Radiographics, 27, S147-S164. doi:10.1148/rg.27si075516
[2] Moon, M., Cornfeld, D. and Weinreb, J. (2009) Dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Clinics of North America, 17, 351-362. doi:10.1016/j.mric.2009.01.010
[3] Orel, S. (2008) Who should have breast magnetic resonance imaging evaluation? Journal of Clinical Oncology, 26, 703-711. doi:10.1200/JCO.2007.14.3594
[4] Kuhl, C.K., et al. (1999) Dynamic breast MR imaging: Are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology, 211, 101- 110.
[5] Macura, K.F., Ouwerkerk, R., Jacobs, M.A. and Bluemke, D.A. (2006) Patterns of enhancement on breast MR images: Interpretation and imaging pitfalls. Radiographics, 26, 1719-1734. doi:10.1148/rg.266065025
[6] Evelhoch, J.L. (1999) Key factors in the acquisition of contrast kinetic data for oncology. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 10, 254-259. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1522-2586(199909)10:3<254::AID-JMRI5>3.0.CO;2-9
[7] Goto, M., et al. (2007) Diagnosis of breast tumors by contrast-enhanced MR Imaging: comparison between the diagnostic performance of dynamic enhancement patterns and morphologic features. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 25, 104-112. doi:10.1002/jmri.20812
[8] Siegmann, K.C., et al. (2002) MR Imaging-detected breast lesions: Histopathologic correlation of lesion characteristics and signal intensity data. American Journal of Roentgenology, 178, 1403-1409. doi:10.2214/ajr.178.6.1781403
[9] Hara, M., Watanabe, T., Okumura, A., et al. (2009) Angle between 1 and 4 min gives the most significant difference in time-intensity curves between benign disease and breast cancer: Analysis of dynamic magnetic resonance imaging in 103 patients with breast lesions. Clinical Imaging, 33, 335-342. doi:10.1016/j.clinimag.2008.12.001
[10] Pediconi, F., et al. (2010) Role of breast MR imaging for predicting malignancy of histologically borderline lesions diagnosed at core needle biopsy: Prospective evaluation. Radiology, 257, 653-661. doi:10.1148/radiol.10100732
[11] Baltzer, P.A.T., Renz, D.M., Kullnig, P.E., et al. (2009) Application of computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) in MR-mammography (MRM): Do we really need whole lesion time curve distribution analysis? Academic Radiology, 16, 435-442. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2008.10.007
[12] Vassiou, K., Kanavou, T., Vlychou, M., et al. (2009) Characterization of breast lesions with CE-MR multimodal morphological and kinetic analysis: Comparison with conventional mammography and high-resolution ultra- sound. European Journal of Radiology, 70, 69-76. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.01.012
[13] Leinsinger, G., et al. (2006) Cluster analysis of signalintensity time course in dynamic breast MRI: Does unsupervised vector quantization help to evaluate small mammographic lesions? European Radiology, 16, 1138-1146. doi:10.1007/s00330-005-0053-9
[14] Pediconi, F., Catalano, C., Padula, S., Roselli, A., Dominelli, V., Cagioli, S., Kirchin, M.A., Pirovano, G. and Passariello, R. (2008) Contrast-enhanced MR mammography: Improved lesion detection and differentiation with gado-benate dimeglumine. American Journal of Roentgenology, 191, 1339-1346. doi:10.2214/AJR.07.3533
[15] Jansen, S.A., Fan, X., Karczmar, G.S., et al. (2008) DCEMRI of breast lesions: It kinetic analysis equally effective for both mass and nonmass-like enhancement? Medical Physics, 35, 3102-3109. doi:10.1118/1.2936220
[16] Karahaliou, A., Vassiou, K., Arikidis, N.S., Skiadopoulos, S., Kanavou, T. and Costaridou, L. (2010) Assessing heterogeneity of lesion enhancement kinetics in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for breast cancer diagnosis. British Journal of Radiology, 83, 296-309. doi:10.1259/bjr/50743919
[17] Yoo, J.L., Woo, O.H., Kim, Y.K., Cho, K.R., Yong, H.S., Seo, B.K., Kim, A. and Kang, E.Y. (2010) Can MR imaging contribute in characterizing well-circumscribed breast carcinomas? Radiographics, 30, 1689-1702. doi:10.1148/rg.306105511
[18] Agrawal, G., Su, M.Y., Nalcioglu, O., Feig, S.A. and Chen, J.H. (2009) Significance of breast lesion descriptor in the ACR BI-RADS MRI lexicon. Cancer, 115, 1363- 1380. doi:10.1002/cncr.24156
[19] El Khouli, R.H., Macura, K.J., Jacobs, M.A., Khalil, T.H., Kamel, I.R., Dwyer, A. and Bluemke, D.A. (2009) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast: Quantitative method for kinetic curve type assessment. American Journal of Roentgenology, 193, W295-W300. doi:10.2214/AJR.09.2483
[20] Sansone, M., Fusco, R., Petrillo, A., Petrillo, M. and Bracale, M. (2011) An expectation-maximisation approach for simultaneous pixel classification and tracer kinetic modelling in dynamic contrast enhanced-magnetic resonance imaging. Medical & Biological Engineering & Com- puting, 49, 485-495. doi:10.1007/s11517-010-0695-x
[21] Fusco, R., Sansone, M., Petrillo, M. and Petrillo, A. (2012) Influence of parameterization on tracer kinetic modeling in DCE-MRI. Journal of Medical and Biological Engineering, in press.
[22] Fusco, R., Sansone, M., Maffei, S. and Petrillo, A. (2012) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in breast cancer: A comparison between distributed and compartmental tracer kinetic models. Journal of Biomedical Graphics and Com- puting, 2, 23-36. doi:10.5430/jbgc.v2n2p23
[23] Fusco, R., Sansone, M., Sansone, C. and Petrillo, A. (2012) Segmentation and classification of breast lesions using dynamic and textural features in dynamic contrast enhanced-magnetic resonance imaging. 25th International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems (CBMS), Naples, 20-22 June 2012, 1-4.
[24] Fusco, R., Sansone, M., Petrillo, A. and Sansone, C. (2012) A multiple classifier system for classification of breast lesions using dynamic and morphological features in DCE-MRI. Structural, Syntactic, and Statistical Pattern Recognition. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 7626, 684-692. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-34166-3_75
[25] Schisterman, E.F., Perkins, N.J., Liu, A. and Bondell, H. (2005) Optimal cut-point and its corresponding Youden Index to discriminate individuals using pooled blood samples. Epidemiology, 16, 73-81. doi:10.1097/01.ede.0000147512.81966.ba
[26] Obuchowski, N.A. (2005) ROC analysis. American Journal of Roentgenology, 184, 364-372. doi:10.2214/ajr.184.2.01840364
[27] Joseph, L. and Reinhold, C. (2005) Statistical inference for proportions. American Journal of Roentgenology, 184, 1057-1064. doi:10.2214/ajr.184.4.01841057
[28] Hawass, N.E. (1997) Comparing the sensitivities and specificities of two diagnostic procedures performed on the same group of patients. British Journal of Radiology, 70, 360-366.
[29] Kuhl, C. (2007) The current status of breast MR imaging. Part I. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diag- nostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice. Radiology, 244, 356-378. doi:10.1148/radiol.2442051620
[30] Meyer-Baese, A., et al. (2008) Computer-aided diagnosis and visualization based on clustering and independent component analysis for breast MRI. International Conference on Image Processing, 12, 3000-3003.
[31] El Khouri, C., Tardivon, A., Thibault, F., Barreau, B. and Neuenshwander, S. (2007) Comment je fais une IRM mammaire? Journal de Radiologie, 88, 694-700. doi:10.1016/S0221-0363(07)89880-5
[32] Molleran, V. and Mahoney, M. (2010) The BI-RADS breast magnetic resonance imaging lexicon. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Clinics of North America, 18, 171-185. doi:10.1016/j.mric.2010.02.001
[33] Eby, P.R., et al. (2009) Characteristics of probably benign breast MRI lesions. American Journal of Roentgenology, 193, 861-867. doi:10.2214/AJR.08.2096
[34] Jansen, S.A., Fan, X., Medved, M., et al. (2010) Characterizing early contrast uptake of ductal carcinoma in situ with high temporal resolution dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast: A pilot study. Physics in Medicine and Biology, 55, 473-485. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/55/19/N02
[35] Nishiura, M., Tamaki, Y. and Murase, K. (2010) Differentiation between ductal carcinoma in situ and mastopathy using contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and a model of contrast enhancement. European Journal of Radiology, 80, 740-743. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.09.039
[36] Fernández-Guinea, O., Andicoechea, A., González, L.O., González-Reyes, S., Merino, A.M., Hernández, L.C., López- Mu?iz, A., García-Pravia, P. and Vizoso, F.J. (2010) Relationship between morphological features and kinetic patterns of enhancement of the dynamic breast magnetic resonance imaging and clinico-pathological and biological factors in invasive breast cancer. BMC Cancer, 10, 8. doi:10.1186/1471-2407-10-8
[37] Jansen, S.A., Shimauchi, A., Zak, L., Fan, X., Wood, A.M., Karczmar, G.S. and Newstead, G.M. (2009) Ki- netic curves of malignant lesions are not consistent across MRI systems: Need for improved standardization of breast dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI acquisition. American Journal of Roentgenology, 193, 832-839. doi:10.2214/AJR.08.2025
[38] 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
[39] Bhooshan, N., Giger, M.L., Jansen, S.A., Li, H., Lan, L. and New-stead, G.M. (2010) Cancerous breast lesions on dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images: Computerized characterization for image-based prognostic markers. Radiology, 254, 680-690. doi:10.1148/radiol.09090838
[40] Santamaría, G., Velasco, M., Bargalló, X., Caparrós, X., Farrús, B. and Luis Fernández, P. (2010) Radiologic and pathologic findings in breast tumors with high signal intensity on T2-weighted MR images. Radiographics, 30, 533-548. doi:10.1148/rg.302095044
[41] Peters, N.H., Borel Rinkes, I.H., Zuithoff, N.P., Mali, W.P., Moons, K.G. and Peeters, P.H. (2008) Meta-analysis of MR imaging in the diagnosis of breast lesions. Radiology, 246, 116-124. doi:10.1148/radiol.2461061298

Copyright © 2022 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.