Abstract
Purpose
The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of a dedicated software tool for automated volume measurement of breast lesions in contrast-enhanced (CE) magnetic resonance mammography (MRM).
Material and methods
The size of 52 breast lesions with a known histopathological diagnosis (three benign, 49 malignant) was automatically evaluated using different techniques. The volume of all lesions was measured automatically (AVM) from CE 3D MRM examinations by means of a computer-aided detection (CAD) system and compared with the size estimates based on maximum diameter measurement (MDM) on MRM, ultrasonography (US), mammography and histopathology.
Results
Compared with histopathology as the reference method, AVM understimated lesion size by 4% on average. This result was similar to MDM (3% understimation, not significantly different) but significantly better than US and mammographic lesion measurements (24% and 33% size underestimation, respectively).
Conclusions
AVM is as accurate as MDM but faster. Both methods are more accurate for size assessment of breast lesions compared with US and mammography.
Riassunto
Obiettivo
Scopo di questo studio è stato studiare le prestazioni di un software dedicato per la misura automatica del volume di lesioni identificate dalla risonanza magnetica della mammella (MRM) con utilizzo di mezzo di contrasto paramagnetico (CE).
Materiali e metodi
Le dimensioni di 52 lesioni mammarie con diagnosi istopatologica nota (3 benigne, 49 maligne) sono state valutate automaticamente tramite diverse tecniche. Le dimensioni delle lesioni sono state stimate automaticamente (AVM) da esami CE 3D MRM, utilizzando un sistema di computed aided diagnosis (CAD) e confrontate con stime delle dimensioni basate sulla misura del diametro massimo (MDM) in MRM, ecografia, mammografia ed anatomia patologica.
Risultati
Confrontata con il reperto istopatologico come metodo di riferimento, AVM ha sottostimato la dimensione della lesione del 4% in media. Questo risultato è analogo a MDM (sottostima del 3%, differenza non significativa), ma significativamente migliore della misura della lesione ottenuta dallo studio ecografico o mammografico (sottostima del 24% e del 33% rispettivamente).
Conclusioni
La valutazione dimensionale ottenuta con AVM è accurata tanto quanto MDM, ma più veloce. Entrambi i metodi ottengono nella stima della dimensione per lesioni alla mammella valori più vicini allo standard costituito dalla misura su pezzo operatorio rispetto ad ecografia e mammografia.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References/Bibliografia
Kuhl C (2007) The current status of breast MR imaging. Part I. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice. Radiology 244:356–378
Kuhl C (2007) The current status of breast MR imaging. Part II. Clinical applications. Radiology 244:672–691
Guidi AJ, Fischer L, Harris JR et al (1994) Microvesseldensity and distribution in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst 86:614–619
Oshida K, Nagashima T, Ueda T et al (2005) Pharmacokinetic analysis of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast using dynamic MR mammography. Eur Radiol 15:1353–1360
Gilles R, Zafrani B, Guinebretiere J-M et al (1995) Ductal carcinoma in situ: MR imaging-histopathological correlation. Radiology 196:415–419
Lehman CD, Peacock S, DeMartini WB, Chen X (2006) A new automated software system to evaluate breast MR examinations: improved specificity without decrease sensitivity. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:51–56
Belli P, Costantini M, Malaspina C et al (2006) MRI accuracy in residual disease evaluation in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Clin Radiol 61:946–953
Partridge SC, Gibbs JE, Lu Y et al (2002) Accuracy of MR imaging for revealing residual breast cancer in patients who have undergone neoadjuvant chemotherapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:1193–1199
Akazawa K, Tamaki Y, Taguchi T et al (2006) Preoperative evaluation of residual tumour extent by three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast J 12:130–137
Partridge SC, Gibbs JE, Lu Y et al (2005) MRI measurements of breast tumour volume predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and recurrent free survival. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184:1174–1781
James K, Eisenhauer E, Christian M et al (1999) Measuring response in solid tumours: unidimensional versus bidimensional measurements. J Natl Cancer Inst 91:523–528
Kaste SC, Liu T, Billups CA et al (2004) Tumour size as a predictor of outcome in pediatric non-metastatic osteosarcoma of the extremity. Pediatr Blood Cancer 43:723–728
Soutter WB, Hanoch J, D’Arcy T et al (2004) Pretreatment tumour volume measurement on high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging as a predictor of survival in cervical cancer. BJOG 111:741–747
Nicolet V, Carignan L, Bourdon F et al (2000) MR imaging of cervical carcinoma: a practical staging approach. Radiographics 20:1539–1549
Levrini G, Mori CA, Vacondio R et al (2008) MRI patterns of invasive lobular cancers: T1 and T2 features. Radiol Med 113:1110–1115
Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B et al (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendation from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer 46:1296–1316
Sardanelli F, Giuseppetti M, Canavese G et al (2008) Indications for Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Consensus Document “Attualità in senologia”, Florence 2007, Radiol Med 113:1085–1095
Arazi-Kleinman T, Causer P, Jong R et al (2009) Can breast MRI computer-aided detection (CAD) improve radiologist accuracy for lesions detected at MRI screening and recommended for biopsy in a high-risk population? Clin Radiol 64:1166–1174
Baltzer P, Freiberg C, Beger S et al (2009) Clinical MR-mammography: are computer-assisted methods superior to visual or manual measurements for curve type analysis? A systematic approach. Acad Radiol 16:1070–1076
Meeuwis C, van de Ven, Stapper G et al (2010) Computer-aided detection (CAD) for breast MRI: evaluation of efficacy at 3.0 T. Eur Radiol 20:522–528
Berg W, Gutierrez L, NessAiver M (2004) Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology 233:830–849
Solin LJ, Orel SG, Hwang W-T et al (2008) Relationship of breast magnetic resonance imaging to outcome after breast-conservation treatment with radiation for women with early-stage invasive breast carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol 26:386–391
Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Bick U, Bradley WG Jr et al (2001) International investigation of breast MRI: results of a multicentre study (11 sites) concerning diagnostic parameters for contrast-enhanced MRI based on 519 histopathologically correlated lesions. Eur Radiol 11:531–546
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Levrini, G., Sghedoni, R., Mori, C. et al. Size assessment of breast lesions by means of a computer-aided detection (CAD) system for magnetic resonance mammography. Radiol med 116, 1039–1049 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-011-0664-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-011-0664-y