Comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine‐enhanced breast MRI and gadopentetate dimeglumine‐enhanced breast MRI with mammography and ultrasound for the detection of breast cancer. Issue 5 (4th November 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gilbert, Fiona J.; van den Bosch, Harrie C.M.; Petrillo, Antonella; Siegmann, Katja; Heverhagen, Johannes T.; Panizza, Pietro; Gehl, Hans‐Björn; Pediconi, Federica; Diekmann, Felix; Peng, Wei‐Jun; Ma, Lin; Sardanelli, Francesco; Belli, Paolo; Corcione, Stefano; Zechmann, Christian M.; Faivre‐Pierret, Matthieu; Martincich, Laura
• Is Part Of: Journal of magnetic resonance imaging. Volume 39:Issue 5(2014)
• Page Start: 1272
• Page End: 1286
• Publication Date: 2013-11-04
• Subjects: breast cancer -- gadobenate dimeglumine‐enhanced MRI -- mammography -- ultrasound; Magnetic resonance imaging -- Periodicals; 616
• DOI: 10.1002/jmri.24434
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1053-1807

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: To compare gadobenate dimeglumine‐enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with gadopentetate dimeglumine‐enhanced MRI, mammography, and ultrasound for breast cancer detection across different malignant lesion types and across different densities of breast tissue. Materials and Methods: In all, 153 women with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI‐RADS) 3–5 findings on mammography and/or ultrasound underwent identical breast MRI exams at 1.5T with gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine. Images were evaluated by three independent blinded radiologists. Mammography, ultrasound, and combined mammography and/or ultrasound findings were available for 108, 109, and 131 women. Imaging findings were matched with histology data by a fourth, independent, blinded radiologist. Malignant lesion detection rates and diagnostic performance were compared. Results: In all, 120, 120, and 140 confirmed malignant lesions were present in patients undergoing MRI+mammography, MRI+ultrasound, and MRI+mammography and/or ultrasound, respectively. Significantly greater cancer detection rates were noted by all three readers for comparisons of gadobenate dimeglumine‐enhanced MRI with mammography (Δ15.8–17.5%; P < 0.0001), ultrasound (Δ18.3–20.0%; P < 0.0001), and mammography and/or ultrasound (Δ8.6–10.7%; P ≤ 0.0105) but not for comparisons of gadopentetate dimeglumine‐enhanced MRI with conventional techniques ( P > 0.05). The false‐positive detection rates were lower on gadobenate dimeglumine‐enhanced MRI than on conventional imaging (4.0–5.5% vs. 11.1% at mammography; 6.3–8.4% vs. 15.5% at ultrasound). Significantly improved cancer detection on MRI was noted in heterogeneously dense breast (91.2–97.3% on gadobenate dimeglumine‐enhanced MRI vs. 77.2–84.9% on gadopentetate dimeglumine‐enhanced MRI vs. 71.9‐84.9% with conventional techniques) and for invasive cancers (93.2–96.2% for invasive ductal carcinoma [IDC] on gadobenate dimeglumine‐enhanced MRI vs. 79.7–88.5% on gadopentetate dimeglumine‐enhanced MRI vs. 77.0–84.4% with conventional techniques). Overall diagnostic performance for the detection of cancer was superior on gadobenate dimeglumine‐enhanced MRI than on conventional imaging or gadopentetate dimeglumine‐enhanced MRI. Conclusion: Gadobenate dimeglumine‐enhanced MRI significantly improves cancer detection compared to gadopentetate dimeglumine‐enhanced MRI, mammography, and ultrasound in a selected group of patients undergoing breast MRI for preoperative staging or because of inconclusive findings at conventional imaging.J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2014;39:1272–1286 . ©2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc .