Display options
Share it on

Pol J Radiol. 2015 Aug 29;80:401-10. doi: 10.12659/PJR.894863. eCollection 2015.

The Efficacy of One Molar Contrast Material in the Evaluation of Breast Lesions with MR Imaging.

Polish journal of radiology

Nursen Toprak, Ozkan Unal, Serhat Avcu

Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Yüzüncü Y?l University Medical Faculty, Van, Turkey.
  2. Department of Radiology, Gazi University Medical Faculty, Ankara, Turkey.

PMID: 26405464 PMCID: PMC4557414 DOI: 10.12659/PJR.894863

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To investigate the efficacy of 1 molar (containing 1 mol/mL gadobutrol) contrast material in the differentiation of malignant and benign breast lesions with MRI.

MATERIAL/METHODS: Thirty-seven women (age range: 22-77 years, mean: 43.7 years) with 76 breast lesions were included in this study. Dynamic post-contrast images with 0.2 mL/kg gadobutrol (Gadovist) injection were obtained in all patients. Contrast-to-noise-ratio (CNR) of the lesions, as well as their contrast enhancement patterns (ring, heterogeneous, homogenous), and perilesional increased vascularity were studied.

RESULTS: Fifty-six benign and 20 malignant lesions were examined histopathologically. In malignant cases, heterogeneous and peripheral enhancements were most commonly determined, whereas homogeneous enhancement was most commonly determined in benign cases. CNR was 450% in malignant lesions, and 60% in benign lesions.

CONCLUSIONS: Type II/III contrast-time curves, ring/heterogeneous enhancement, prominent increase in CNR, and perilesional vascularity increase are important findings determining malignancy, whereas Type I curves, homogenous enhancement, a slight increase in CNR, and absence of perilesional vascularity increase support findings of benign breast lesions. By increasing CNR and providing increased perilesional vascularity, Gadovist can help in the determination of malignant breast lesions.

Keywords: Breast; Gadolinium DTPA; Magnetic Resonance Imaging

References

  1. Radiology. 1999 Apr;211(1):101-10 - PubMed
  2. Radiographics. 2006 Nov-Dec;26(6):1719-34; quiz 1719 - PubMed
  3. Eur J Radiol. 1997 Feb;24(2):94-108 - PubMed
  4. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011 Apr;196(4):942-55 - PubMed
  5. Radiol Clin North Am. 2004 Sep;42(5):919-34, vii - PubMed
  6. Radiology. 2005 Oct;237(1):45-56 - PubMed
  7. Radiology. 2000 Aug;216(2):545-53 - PubMed
  8. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2006 Aug;14(3):293-303, v - PubMed
  9. Br J Radiol. 2000 Aug;73(872):806-18 - PubMed
  10. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003 Sep;181(3):663-76 - PubMed
  11. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2006 Aug;14(3):305-28, v - PubMed
  12. Radiology. 2005 Jun;235(3):791-7 - PubMed
  13. Radiology. 1996 Sep;200(3):639-49 - PubMed
  14. Acta Radiol. 2003 Jul;44(4):379-86 - PubMed
  15. Radiol Clin North Am. 1992 Jan;30(1):187-210 - PubMed
  16. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2005 Aug;22(2):286-90 - PubMed
  17. Radiology. 2002 Oct;225(1):165-75 - PubMed
  18. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005 May;184(5):1508-9 - PubMed
  19. Radiology. 1988 May;167(2):353-8 - PubMed
  20. Radiology. 1988 Oct;169(1):49-54 - PubMed

Publication Types