TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of MDCT and MRI for evaluating the intraductal component of breast cancer
AU - Shimauchi, Akiko
AU - Yamada, Takayuki
AU - Sato, Akihiro
AU - Takase, Kei
AU - Usami, Shin
AU - Ishida, Takanori
AU - Moriya, Takuya
AU - Takahashi, Shoki
PY - 2006/8
Y1 - 2006/8
N2 - OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to compare the accuracy of MDCT and MRI for evaluating the intraductal component of breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Sixty-nine patients with histologically proven invasive carcinoma underwent MDCT and MRI. Retrospectively, two radiologists performed a blinded review of the MDCT and MRI. Cases with intraductal component enhancement were classified into two morphologic types: ductal extension and segmental distribution. The lengths of the main tumor and of the intraductal component were measured in cases with ductal extension. For cases with segmental distribution, only the maximum length of the tumor was measured. RESULTS. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy in detecting the intraductal component were 61%, 88%, and 71%, respectively, using MDCT; and 75%, 88%, and 80%, respectively, using MRI. MRI revealed the presence of the intraductal component with significantly higher sensitivity than did MDCT (p = 0.031). In the analysis of the length of the intraductal component in cases with ductal extension, which had relatively small intraductal components, underestimation by 15 mm or more was significantly less frequent with MRI than with MDCT (p = 0.008). There was no significant difference between MDCT and MRI in the evaluation of the maximum length of tumors in cases with segmental distribution, which had relatively large intraductal components. CONCLUSION. Compared with MDCT, MRI revealed the presence of the intraductal component with higher sensitivity and equivalent specificity. In cases with ductal extension, MRI is more precise than MDCT for determination of the margin for surgical removal, with less underestimation of the extent of the intraductal component.
AB - OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to compare the accuracy of MDCT and MRI for evaluating the intraductal component of breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Sixty-nine patients with histologically proven invasive carcinoma underwent MDCT and MRI. Retrospectively, two radiologists performed a blinded review of the MDCT and MRI. Cases with intraductal component enhancement were classified into two morphologic types: ductal extension and segmental distribution. The lengths of the main tumor and of the intraductal component were measured in cases with ductal extension. For cases with segmental distribution, only the maximum length of the tumor was measured. RESULTS. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy in detecting the intraductal component were 61%, 88%, and 71%, respectively, using MDCT; and 75%, 88%, and 80%, respectively, using MRI. MRI revealed the presence of the intraductal component with significantly higher sensitivity than did MDCT (p = 0.031). In the analysis of the length of the intraductal component in cases with ductal extension, which had relatively small intraductal components, underestimation by 15 mm or more was significantly less frequent with MRI than with MDCT (p = 0.008). There was no significant difference between MDCT and MRI in the evaluation of the maximum length of tumors in cases with segmental distribution, which had relatively large intraductal components. CONCLUSION. Compared with MDCT, MRI revealed the presence of the intraductal component with higher sensitivity and equivalent specificity. In cases with ductal extension, MRI is more precise than MDCT for determination of the margin for surgical removal, with less underestimation of the extent of the intraductal component.
KW - Breast cancer
KW - MDCT
KW - MRI
KW - Radiologic-pathologic correlation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33746659814&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33746659814&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2214/AJR.05.0876
DO - 10.2214/AJR.05.0876
M3 - Article
C2 - 16861533
AN - SCOPUS:33746659814
SN - 0361-803X
VL - 187
SP - 322
EP - 329
JO - American Journal of Roentgenology
JF - American Journal of Roentgenology
IS - 2
ER -