Characteristics of ductal carcinoma in situ in magnetic resonance imaging
ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to evaluate typical dynamic and morphological characteristics of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). An optimized diagnosis of DCIS is considered to be valuable for radiologists and clinicians, especially for early and successful treatment planning.
Magnetic resonance examinations of 74 patients with pure DCIS were evaluated. Categories were established for signal increase (C1=the same enhancement as glandular tissue; C2=slow and continuous; C3=strong initial and slow further increase; C4=strong initial increase and plateau phenomenon; and C5=strong initial increase followed by a washout phenomenon) and morphological findings (M0=no pattern observed; M1=linear or linear-branched; M2=segmental dotted or granular; M3=segmental homogenous; and M4=focal spotlike). All cases were associated with histopathological results.
Regarding the 74 DCIS lesions, 37 (50%) showed a signal increase typical of malignancy (C4 and C5). Among all cases, 33.3% of G1 lesions, 68.4% of G2 lesions, and 55.5% of G3 lesions presented a C4 or C5 enhancement. Furthermore, 55.4% (n=41) showed a segmental dotted enhancement (M2), whereas 17.6% showed a focal spotlike enhancement (M4). The morphological features of the other lesions were as follows: 12.2% homogeneous (M3) and 4.0% linear (M1). In 8 cases (10.8%), no significant pattern was observed (M0). Combining dynamic and morphological characteristics, 68.9% presented an appearance comparable with the appearance of invasive breast cancer in MRI.
Ductal CIS lesions show typical morphological and kinetic, but heterogeneous, characteristics in MRI, comparable with the histopathological variety of the disease. For detecting pure DCIS cases early and precisely, a combination of dynamic and morphological criteria seems to be important.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: A short-term cost criterion is introduced to model the productivity of an M/G/1 queuing/production system; the cost is a weighted sum of penalties associated with the work rate control, penalties associated with part waiting time, and penalties on the increase of parts in the queue, assessed during the time required to serve a single part. The distribution of the service time is of general form, parameterized by the work rate (the control variable). The decision epochs for the optimal control policy are restricted to the times when service is initiated for a part. The major advantages of this formulation are generality and mathematical tractability of the optimal solution. A simple nonlinear search routine is needed to determine the optimal work rate. For the special case of an exponential service time distribution and the special case where service is modeled by a diffusion-threshold process, analytical expressions for the optimal control policy in terms of the queue length are obtained
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The objective of this study is to compare mammography with magnetic resonance mammography (MRM) in the diagnosis of histopathologically verified subtypes of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). All patients with verified pure DCIS lesions (no signs of invasion or microinvasion) after surgery were identified between 2004 and 2006. Selection criteria were performed mammography and MRM at our institute prior to surgery resulting in a cohort of 33 patients (mean patient age, 60 years; mean lesion size, 15 mm). Magnetic resonance mammography enabled identification of DCIS in 29 of 33 patients with histopathologically verified pure DCIS (7 G1, 13 G2, and 9 G3 subtypes), giving an overall sensitivity of 87.9% for this patient cohort. Four DCIS lesions (two G1 and two G2) up to 5 mm diameter or smaller were not detected by MRM. In mammography, 21 of the 33 patients revealed suspicious outcome (including all lesions not detected by MRM), demonstrating an overall sensitivity of 63.6%. The remaining 12 mammographically occult DCIS lesions (three G1 subtypes, four G2 subtypes, five G3 subtypes) were all identified in MRM. Magnetic resonance mammography can diagnose mammographically visible and also occult DCIS lesions without microcalcifications. Only small DCIS foci with microcalcifications could additionally be verified by mammography supposing MRM as a diagnostic approach.Clinical imaging 11/2008; 32(6):438-42. DOI:10.1016/j.clinimag.2008.05.005 · 0.60 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The objective of our study was to intraindividually compare 0.1 mmol/kg doses of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for contrast-enhanced breast MRI. Forty-seven women (mean age +/- SD, 50.8 +/- 12.9 years) with breast lesions classified as BI-RADS category 3, 4, or 5 for suspicion of malignancy underwent two identical MR examinations at 1.5 T separated by 48-72 hours. T1-weighted gradient-echo images were acquired before contrast administration and at 2-minute intervals after the randomized injection of gadopentetate dimeglumine or gadobenate dimeglumine at 2 mL/s. Two blinded readers evaluated randomized image sets for lesion detection and differentiation as benign or malignant compared with histology. The McNemar exact test and the generalized estimating equation (GEE) were used to compare lesion detection rates and diagnostic performance in terms of sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Histopathology data were available for 78 lesions. Significantly more lesions overall (75/78 [96%] vs 62/78 [79%], respectively; p = 0.0002) and significantly more malignant lesions (49/50 [98%] vs 38/50 [76%]; p = 0.0009) were detected with gadobenate dimeglumine than gadopentetate dimeglumine. All detected malignant lesions were correctly diagnosed with both agents. More detected benign lesions were correctly diagnosed with gadobenate dimeglumine than with gadopentetate dimeglumine (20/26 [77%] vs 17/24 [71%], respectively). Differentiation of lesions was significantly (p = 0.0001) better with gadobenate dimeglumine. Significantly better diagnostic performance was noted with gadobenate dimeglumine than with gadopentetate dimeglumine, respectively, for sensitivity (98.0% vs 76.0%; p = 0.0064), accuracy (88.5% vs 69.2%; p = 0.0004), PPV (86.0% vs 76.0%; p = 0.0321), and NPV (95.2% vs 57.1%; p = 0.0003). Lesion detection and malignant-benign differentiation is significantly better with 0.1 mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine than 0.1 mmol/kg gadopentetate dimeglumine.American Journal of Roentgenology 12/2008; 191(5):1339-46. DOI:10.2214/AJR.07.3533 · 2.74 Impact Factor