Academic Radiology
Volume 17, Issue 1 , Pages 24-30 , January 2010

Relating Dose of Contrast Media Administered to Uptake and Washout of Malignant Lesions on DCEMRI of the Breast

  • Sanaz A. Jansen, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, University of Chicago, 841 S. Maryland Ave, MC 2026, Chicago, IL 60637
    • ,
  • Xiaobing Fan, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, University of Chicago, 841 S. Maryland Ave, MC 2026, Chicago, IL 60637
    • ,
  • Cheng Yang, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, University of Chicago, 841 S. Maryland Ave, MC 2026, Chicago, IL 60637
    • ,
  • Akiko Shimauchi, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, University of Chicago, 841 S. Maryland Ave, MC 2026, Chicago, IL 60637
    • ,
  • Gregory Karczmar, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, University of Chicago, 841 S. Maryland Ave, MC 2026, Chicago, IL 60637
    • ,
  • Gillian M. Newstead, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, University of Chicago, 841 S. Maryland Ave, MC 2026, Chicago, IL 60637
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence to: G.M.N.

Received 10 February 2009 ,Accepted 30 April 2009.

References 

  1. Boetes C, Mus RD, Holland R, et al. Breast tumors: comparative accuracy of MR imaging relative to mammography and US for demonstrating extent. Radiology. 1995;197:743–747
  2. Schouten van der Velden AP, Boetes C, Bult P, et al. The value of magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis and size assessment of in situ and small invasive breast carcinoma. Am J Surg. 2006;192:172–178
  3. Liberman L. Breast MR imaging in assessing extent of disease. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2006;14:339–349vi
  4. Newstead GM. MR imaging in the management of patients with breast cancer. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2006;27:320–332
  5. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57:75–89
  6. Hylton N. MR imaging for assessment of breast cancer response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2006;14:383–389vii
  7. Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S, et al. Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions?. Radiology. 1999;211:101–110
  8. Abraham JL, Thakral C. Tissue distribution and kinetics of gadolinium and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Eur J Radiol. 2008;66:200–207
  9. Kanal E, Barkovich AJ, Bell C, et al. ACR guidance document for safe MR practices: 2007. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:1447–1474
  10. Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Haustein J, Pohl C, et al. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast: comparison of two different doses of gadopentetate dimeglumine. Radiology. 1994;191:639–646
  11. Szabo BK, Aspelin P, Wiberg MK, et al. Dynamic MR imaging of the breast. Analysis of kinetic and morphologic diagnostic criteria. Acta Radiol. 2003;44:379–386
  12. Esserman L, Hylton N, George T, et al. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging to assess tumor histopathology and angiogenesis in breast carcinoma. Breast J. 1999;5:13–21
  13. Li KL, Partridge SC, Joe BN, et al. Invasive breast cancer: predicting disease recurrence by using high-spatial-resolution signal enhancement ratio imaging. Radiology. 2008;248:79–87
  14. Li KL, Henry RG, Wilmes LJ, et al. Kinetic assessment of breast tumors using high spatial resolution signal enhancement ratio (SER) imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2007;58:572–581
  15. Holm S. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Statist. 1979;6:65–70
  16. Jansen SA, Newstead GM, Abe H, et al. Pure ductal carcinoma in situ: kinetic and morphologic MR characteristics compared with mammographic appearance and nuclear grade. Radiology. 2007;245:684–691
  17. Schnall MD, Blume J, Bluemke DA, et al. Diagnostic architectural and dynamic features at breast MR imaging: multicenter study. Radiology. 2006;238:42–53
  18. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, et al. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:8469–8476
  19. Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, et al. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA. 2004;292:1317–1325
  20. Sardanelli F, Podo F, D'Agnolo G, et al. Multicenter comparative multimodality surveillance of women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer (HIBCRIT study): interim results. Radiology. 2007;242:698–715
  21. Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Bick U, Bradley WG, et al. 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. 2001;11:531–546
  22. Leach MO, Boggis CR, Dixon AK, et al. Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). Lancet. 2005;365:1769–1778
  23. Knopp MV, Bourne MW, Sardanelli F, et al. Gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI of the breast: analysis of dose response and comparison with gadopentetate dimeglumine. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181:663–676
  24. Pediconi F, Catalano C, Occhiato R, et al. Breast lesion detection and characterization at contrast-enhanced MR mammography: gadobenate dimeglumine versus gadopentetate dimeglumine. Radiology. 2005;237:45–56
  25. FDA. Prohance, Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/label/2007/020131s023,021489s001lbl.pdf. Accessed February 25, 2009.
  26. FDA. Magnevist, Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/label/2007/019596s043,021037s018lbl.pdf. Accessed February 25, 2009.
  27. FDA. Omniscan, Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/label/2007/020123s034lbl.pdf. Accessed February 25, 2009.
  28. FDA. Multihance, Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/label/2007/021357s003,021358s003lbl.pdf. Accessed February 25, 2009.
  29. Warren R, Hayes C, Pointon L, et al. A test of performance of breast MRI interpretation in a multicentre screening study. Magn Reson Imaging. 2006;24:917–929
  30. Van Goethem M, Schelfout K, Kersschot E, et al. Comparison of MRI features of different grades of DCIS and invasive carcinoma of the breast. Jbr-Btr. 2005;88:225–232
  31. Neubauer H, Li M, Kuehne-Heid R, et al. High grade and non-high grade ductal carcinoma in situ on dynamic MR mammography: characteristic findings for signal increase and morphological pattern of enhancement. Br J Radiol. 2003;76:3–12
  32. Chen W, Giger ML, Bick U, et al. Automatic identification and classification of characteristic kinetic curves of breast lesions on DCE-MRI. Med Phys. 2006;33:2878–2887
  33. Armitage P, Behrenbruch C, Brady M, Moore N. Extracting and visualizing physiological parameters using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breast. Med Image Anal. 2005;9:315–329

 Supported by the Segal Foundation and DOD Award W81XWH-06-1-0329.

PII: S1076-6332(09)00396-1

doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2009.06.015

Academic Radiology
Volume 17, Issue 1 , Pages 24-30 , January 2010

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution