Article citationsMore>>

Fernández-Guinea, O., Andicoechea, A., González, L.O., González-Reyes, S., Merino, A.M., Hernández, L.C., López- Mu?iz, A., García-Pravia, P. and Vizoso, F.J. (2010) Relationship between morphological features and kinetic patterns of enhancement of the dynamic breast magnetic resonance imaging and clinico-pathological and biological factors in invasive breast cancer. BMC Cancer, 10, 8. doi:10.1186/1471-2407-10-8

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: Can semi-quantitative evaluation of uncertain (type II) time-intensity curves improve diagnosis in breast DCE-MRI?

  AUTHORS: Roberta Fusco, Salvatore Filice, Vincenza Granata, Ylenia Mandato, Annamaria Porto, Massimiliano D’Aiuto, Massimo Rinaldo, Maurizio Di Bonito, Mario Sansone, Carlo Sansone, Antonio Rotondo, Antonella Petrillo Petrillo

  KEYWORDS: Breast Cancer; Dynamic Contrast Enhanced-MRI; Time Intensity Curve; Tracer Kinetics; Semi-Quantitative Analysis

  JOURNAL NAME: Journal of Biomedical Science and Engineering, Vol.6 No.3A, March 29, 2013

  ABSTRACT: Objective/Background: Qualitative assessment of uncertain (type II) time-intensity curves (TICs) in breast DCE-MRI is problematic and operator dependent. The aim of this work is to evaluate if a semi-quantitative assessment of uncertain TICs could improve overall diagnostic performance. Methods: In this study 49 lesions from 44 patients were retrospectively analysed. Per each lesion one region-of-interest (ROI)- averaged TIC was qualitatively evaluated by two radiologists in consensus: all the ROIs resulted in type II (uncertain) TIC. The same TICs were semi-quantitatively re-classified on the basis of the difference between the signal intensities of the last-time-point and of the peak: this difference was classified according to two different cut-off ranges (±5% and ±3%). All patients were cytological or histological biopsy proven. Fisher test and McNemar test were performed to evaluate if results were statistically significant (p respectively while using ±5% were 58%, 96%, 94% and 68% respectively. Using the ±5% cut-off 26/28 (93%) TICs were correctly reclassified while using the ±3% cut-off 34/38 (90%) TICs were correctly reclassified (p