Kinetic characteristics of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in dynamic breast MRI using computer-assisted analysis

References

• Drew PJ, Chatterjee S, Turnbull LW, Read J, Carleton PJ, Fox JN, . Dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breast is superior to triple assessment for the pre-operative detection of multifocal breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 1999;6:599–603.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kristoffersen Wiberg M, Aspelin P, Perbeck L, Bone B. Value of MR imaging in clinical evaluation of breast lesions. Acta Radiol 2002;43:275–81.
   Google Scholar
• Stomper PC, Herman S, Klippenstein DL, Winston JS, Edge SB, Arredondo MA, . Suspect breast lesions: findings at dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging correlated with mammographic and pathologic features. Radiology 1995;197:387–95.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boné B, Aspelin P, Bronge L, Isberg B, Perbeck L, Veress B. Sensitivity and specificity of MR mammography with histopathological correlation in 250 breasts. Acta Radiol 1996;37:208–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malich A, Fischer DR, Wurdinger S, Boettcher J, Marx C, Facius M, . Potential MRI interpretation model: differentiation of benign from malignant breast masses. Am J Roentgenol 2005;185:964–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer DR, Wurdinger S, Boettcher J, Malich A, Kaiser WA. Further signs in the evaluation of magnetic resonance mammography: a retrospective study. Invest Radiol 2005;40:430–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaiser WA. Breast magnetic resonance imaging: principles and techniques. Semin Roentgenol 2007;42: 228–35.
   Google Scholar
• Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, Carter WB, Bhargavan M, Lewis RS, . Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology 2004;233:830–49.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S, Leutner C, Wardelmann E, Gieseke J, . Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 1999;211:101–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neubauer H, Li M, Kuehne-Heid R, Kaiser WA. 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szabó BK, Aspelin P, Wiberg MK, Boné B. Dynamic MR imaging of the breast. Analysis of kinetic and morphologic diagnostic criteria. Acta Radiol 2003;44:379–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Facius M, Renz DM, Neubauer H, Böttcher J, Gajda M, Camara O, . Characteristics of ductal carcinoma in situ in magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Imaging 2007;31: 394–400.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Bieling HB, Wardelmann E, Leutner CC, Koenig R, . MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study. Lancet 2007;370:485–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shiraishi A, Kurosaki Y, Maehara T, Suzuki M, Kurosumi M. Extension of ductal carcinoma in situ: histopathological association with MR imaging and mammography. Magn Reson Med Sci 2003;31:159–63.
   Google Scholar
• Brem RF, Fishman M, Rapelyea JA. Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ with mammography, breast specific gamma imaging, and magnetic resonance imaging: a comparative study. Acad Radiol 2007;14:945–50.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jansen SA, Newstead GM, Abe H, Shimauchi A, Schmidt RA, Karczmar GS. Pure ductal carcinoma in situ: kinetic and morphologic MR characteristics compared with mammographic appearance and nuclear grade. Radiology 2007;245:684–91.
   Google Scholar
• Bluemke DA, Gatsonis CA, Chen MH, DeAngelis GA, DeBruhl N, Harms S, . Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy. JAMA 2004;292:2735–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehman CD, Peacock S, DeMartini WB, Chen X. A new automated software system to evaluate breast MR examinations: improved specificity without decreased sensitivity. Am J Roentgenol 2006;187:51–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams TC, DeMartini WB, Partridge SC, Peacock S, Lehman CD. Breast MR imaging: computer-aided evaluation program for discriminating benign from malignant lesions. Radiology 2007;244:94–103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renz DM, Baltzer PA, Kullnig PM, Böttcher J, Vag T, Gajda M, . Clinical value of computer assisted analysis in MR mammography. A comparison between two systems and three observers with different levels of experience. RoFo 2008;180:968–76.
   Google Scholar
• Gribbestad IS, Nilsen G, Fjøsne H, Fougner R, Haugen OA, Petersen SB, . Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breast. Acta Oncol 1992;31: 833–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weidner N, Semple JP, Welch WR, Folkman J. Tumor angiogenesis and metastasis-correlation in invasive breast carcinoma. N Engl J Med 1991;324:1–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilles R, Zafrani B, Guinebretière JM, Meunier M, Lucidarme O, Tardivon AA, . Ductal carcinoma in situ: MR imaging-histopathologic correlation. Radiology 1995; 196:415–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guidi AJ, Fischer L, Harris JR, Schnitt SJ. Microvessel density and distribution in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:614–19.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Viehweg P, Lampe D, Buchmann J, Heywang-Köbrunner SH. In situ and minimally invasive breast cancer: morphologic and kinetic features on contrast-enhanced MR imaging. MAGMA 2000;11:129–37.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pabst T, Kenn W, Kaiser WA, Hahn D. Understanding why contrast enhancement in dynamic MRI is not reproducible: illustration with a simple phantom. Breast J 2001;7:166–70.
   Google Scholar