Biomedical subjects

David Thickman

Publications and source records attributed to David Thickman.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Diagnostic architectural and dynamic features at breast MR imaging: multicenter study.

PURPOSE: To prospectively determine the prevalence and predictive value of three-dimensional (3D) and dynamic breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and contrast material kinetic features alone and as part of predictive diagnostic models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board or ethics committees of all participating institutions, and informed consent was obtained from all participants. Although study data collection was performed before HIPAA went into effect, standards that would be compliant with HIPAA were adhered to. Data from the International Breast MR Consortium trial 6883 were used in the analysis. Women underwent 3D (minimum spatial resolution, 0.7 x 1.4 x 3 mm; minimal temporal resolution, 4 minutes) and dynamic two-dimensional (temporal resolution, 15 seconds) MR imaging examinations. Readers rated enhancement shape, enhancement distribution, border architecture, enhancement intensity, presence of rim enhancement or internal septations, and the shape of the contrast material kinetic curve. Regression was performed for each feature individually and after adjustment for associated mammographic findings. Multivariate models were also constructed from multiple architectural and dynamic features. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (Az values) were estimated for all models. RESULTS: There were 995 lesions in 854 women (mean age, 53 years +/- 12 [standard deviation]; range, 18-80 years) for whom pathology data were available. The absence of enhancement was associated with an 88% negative predictive value for cancer. Qualitative characterization of the dynamic enhancement pattern was associated with an Az value of 0.66 across all lesion architectures. Focal mass margins (Az = 0.76) and signal intensity (Az = 0.70) were highly predictive imaging features. Multivariate models were constructed with an Az value of 0.880. CONCLUSION: Architectural and dynamic features are important in breast MR imaging interpretation. Multivariate models involving feature assessment have a diagnostic accuracy superior to that of qualitative characterization of the dynamic enhancement pattern.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2005

Added cancer yield of MRI in screening the contralateral breast of women recently diagnosed with breast cancer: results from the International Breast Magnetic Resonance Consortium (IBMC) trial.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the added cancer yield of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) over mammography in the contralateral breast of patients with a recent diagnosis of breast cancer. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, international study of mammography and MRI in women with a recent diagnosis of unilateral breast cancer. Each subject received a mammogram, clinical breast exam (CBE), and MRI of the unaffected breast within a 90 day time period. Definitive diagnosis of suspicious findings was determined through biopsy and central pathology review. RESULTS: Of the 103 eligible women included in study analyses, MRI detected 4 cancers in the contralateral breast while mammography detected none. MRI resulted in 12% (95% CI, 6%-20%) of women recommended for biopsy and 10% of women undergoing additional biopsy. The added cancer yield of MRI was 4% (95% CI, 1%-10%) and the positive predictive value of an abnormal MRI was 33% (95% CI, 10%-65%). Forty percent (4/10) of the biopsies performed based on the MRI recommendation were positive for malignancy. CONCLUSION: In women with a recent breast cancer diagnosis, approximately 4% will have an otherwise occult invasive breast cancer detected in the opposite breast by MRI alone.

Biopsy↗

PubMed2005

Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging.

BACKGROUND: The authors compared the performance of screening mammography versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in women at genetically high risk for breast cancer. METHODS: The authors conducted an international prospective study of screening mammography and MRI in asymptomatic, genetically high-risk women age >/= 25 years. Women with a history of breast cancer were eligible for a contralateral screening if they had been diagnosed within 5 years or a bilateral screening if they had been diagnosed > 5 years previously. All examinations (MRI, mammography, and clinical breast examination [CBE]) were performed within 90 days of each other. RESULTS: In total, 390 eligible women were enrolled by 13 sites, and 367 women completed all study examinations. Imaging evaluations recommended 38 biopsies, and 27 biopsies were performed, resulting in 4 cancers diagnosed for an overall 1.1% cancer yield (95% confidence interval [95%CI], 0.3-2.8%). MRI detected all four cancers, whereas mammography detected one cancer. The diagnostic yield of mammography was 0.3% (95%CI, 0.01-1.5%). The yield of cancer by MRI alone was 0.8% (95%CI, - 0.3-2.0%). The biopsy recommendation rates for MRI and mammography were 8.5% (95%CI, 5.8-11.8%) and 2.2% (95%CI, 0.1-4.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Screening MRI in high-risk women was capable of detecting mammographically and clinically occult breast cancer. Screening MRI resulted in 22 of 367 of women (6%) who had negative mammogram and negative CBE examinations undergoing biopsy, resulting in 3 additional cancers detected. MRI also resulted in 19 (5%) false-positive outcomes, which resulted in benign biopsies.

Adult↗