THE MAGNETIC RESONANCE MAMMOGRAPHY WITH DYNAMIC CONTRASTENH ANCEMENT IN THE DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSTICS OF BREAST NODES
https://doi.org/10.18705/2311-4495-2016-3-5-82-94
Abstract
The breast cancer is on the first place among all the maligncies in women. Conventional non-invasive imaging isn’t able to develop the nature of lesion in all cases, especially in the women of fertile age with well-developed gland tissue. This article deals with analysis of magnetic resonance mammography data with dynamic contrast enhancement of 170 women age 23–75, with nodes in the mammary glands. 93 (54,7%) cases were cancers diagnosed, 64 (37,7%) — fibroadenomas, 9 (5,2%) — localized fibroadenomatosis, 4 (2,4%) — inflammatory mass. The algorithm of magnetic resonance mammography with dynamic contrast enhancement is described.
About the Authors
S. V. Serebryakova
Federal Almazov North-West Medical Research Centre
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
MD, PhD, senior researcher of radiology department
G. E. Trufanov
Federal Almazov North-West Medical Research Centre
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
MD, PhD, professor, head of research department of radiology
Akkuratova str. 2, Saint Petersburg, Russia, 197341
V. A. Fokin
Federal Almazov North-West Medical Research Centre
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
MD, PhD, professor, head of radiology department
E. A. Yukhno
Federal state budgetary military educational institution of higher education «Military Medical Academy named after S.M.Kirovdefence of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
PhD, radiologist in MRI Department
Russian Federation
PhD, radiologist in MRI Department
References
1. Bulinski DN, Vasiliev YuS. Modern technologies of diagnostics and treatment of breast cancer. Chelyabinsk.: Chelgma, 2009. р. 84. In Russian [Булынский Д .Н., Васильев Ю.С. Современные технологии диагностики и лечения рака молочной железы. Челябинск.: ЧелГМА, 2009. с. 84].
2. Kharchenko VP, Rozhkova NI. Mammalogy. National leadership. M.: GEOT AR-Media, 2009. p. 328. In Russian [Харченко В.П., Рожкова Н.И. Маммология. Национальное руководство. М.: ГЭОТАР -Медиа, 2009. с. 328].
3. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2013; 267(1): 47-56.
4. Tverezovsky SA, Cherenkov VG, Petrov AB. Analysis of the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer before and after introduction of mammography screening. O ncology. Log them. P. A. Herzen. 2015; 4(5): 24-27. In Russian [Тверезовский С.А., Черенков В.Г., Петров А .Б. Анализ состояния диагностики и лечения рака молочной железы до и после внедрения маммографического скрининга. Онкология. Журнал им. П.А. Г ерцена. 2015; 4(5): 24-27].
5. Evers T B, Hunt KK, Robb GL, Strom EA, Ueno NT. Primary prevention of breast cancer, screening for early detection of breast cancer, and diagnostic evaluation of clinical and mammographic breast abnormalities. Breast Cancer, 2nd edition. New York: Springer. 2008; 27–56.
6. Alvarenga AV, Pereira WC, Infantosi AF et al. Complexity curve and grey level co- occurrence matrix in the texture evaluation of breast tumor on ultrasound images. Medical physics. 2007; 34 (2): 379-387.
7. Dua SM, Gray RJ, Keshtgar M. Strategies for localization of impalpable breast lesions. Breast. 2011; 20:246–253.
8. 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: 75-79.
9. Tafreshi NK, Kumar V, Morse DL et al. Molecular and functional imaging of breast cancer. Cancer Control. 2010; 17:143–155.
10. Schilling K. Positron emission mammography in breast cancer presurgical planning: comparisons with magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011; 38:23– 36.
11. Turkbey B, Kobayashi H, O gawa M et al. Imaging of tumor angiogenesis: functional or targeted? AJR. 2009; 193: 304–313.
12. Harris JR, Lippman ME, Morrow M. et al. Imaging: New techniques. In: Diseases of the Breast. 4th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 2010; 171-192.
13. O'Connor JPB, Jackson A, Parker GJM et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in clinical trials of antivascular therapies. Nat Rev Clin O ncol. 2012; 9: 167–177.
14. Harry VN, Semple SI, Parkin DE et al. U se of new imaging techniques to predict tumour response to therapy Lancet. O nco. 2010; 11: 92–102.
15. Schabel MC, Morrell GR. U ncertainty in T 1 mapping using the variable flip angle method with two flip angles. Phys Med Biol. 2009; 54:1–8.
16. Yang C, Karczmar GS, Medved M et al. Reproducibility assessment of a multiple reference tissue method for quantitative dynamic contrast enhanced-MRI analysis. Magn Reson Med. 2009; 61:851–859.
17. Heye T , Davenport MS, Horvath JJ et al. Reproducibility of dynamic contrast enhanced MR imaging. Part I. Perfusion characteristics in the female pelvis by using multiple computer-aided diagnosis perfusion analysis solutions. Radiology. 2015; 266: 801–811.
Review
For citations:
Serebryakova S.V., Trufanov G.E., Fokin V.A., Yukhno E.A. THE MAGNETIC RESONANCE MAMMOGRAPHY WITH DYNAMIC CONTRASTENH ANCEMENT IN THE DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSTICS OF BREAST NODES. Translational Medicine. 2016;3(5):82-94. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18705/2311-4495-2016-3-5-82-94
Views:
1613
Email this article 