% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Bickelhaupt:119234,
author = {S. Bickelhaupt$^*$ and J. Tesdorff$^*$ and F. Laun$^*$ and
T. A. Kuder$^*$ and W. Lederer and S. Teiner and K.
Maier-Hein$^*$ and H. Daniel and A. Stieber$^*$ and S.
Delorme$^*$ and H.-P. Schlemmer$^*$},
title = {{I}ndependent value of image fusion in unenhanced breast
{MRI} using diffusion-weighted and morphological
{T}2-weighted images for lesion characterization in patients
with recently detected {BI}-{RADS} 4/5 x-ray mammography
findings.},
journal = {European radiology},
volume = {27},
number = {2},
issn = {1432-1084},
address = {Berlin},
publisher = {Springer},
reportid = {DKFZ-2017-00024},
pages = {562 - 569},
year = {2017},
abstract = {The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and
applicability of solitarily reading fused image series of
T2-weighted and high-b-value diffusion-weighted sequences
for lesion characterization as compared to sequential or
combined image analysis of these unenhanced sequences and to
contrast- enhanced breast MRI.This IRB-approved study
included 50 female participants with suspicious breast
lesions detected in screening X-ray mammograms, all of which
provided written informed consent. Prior to biopsy, all
women underwent MRI including diffusion-weighted imaging
(DWIBS, b = 1500s/mm(2)). Images were analyzed as
follows: prospective image fusion of DWIBS and T2-weighted
images (FU), side-by-side analysis of DWIBS and T2-weighted
series (CO), combination of the first two methods (CO+FU),
and full contrast-enhanced diagnostic protocol (FDP).
Diagnostic indices, confidence, and image quality of the
protocols were compared by two blinded readers.Reading the
CO+FU (accuracy 0.92; NPV $96.1 \%;$ PPV $87.6 \%)$ and
the CO series (0.90; $96.1 \%;$ $83.7 \%)$ provided a
diagnostic performance similar to the FDP (0.95; $96.1 \%;$
$91.3 \%;$ p > 0.05). FU reading alone significantly
reduced the diagnostic accuracy (0.82; $93.3 \%;$
$73.4 \%;$ p = 0.023).MR evaluation of suspicious
BI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions detected on mammography by using a
non-contrast-enhanced T2-weighted and DWIBS sequence
protocol is most accurate if MR images were read using the
CO+FU protocol.• Unenhanced breast MRI with additional
DWIBS/T2w-image fusion allows reliable lesion
characterization. • Abbreviated reading of fused
DWIBS/T2w-images alone decreases diagnostic confidence and
accuracy. • Reading fused DWIBS/T2w-images as the sole
diagnostic method should be avoided.},
cin = {E010 / E020 / E132},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)E010-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)E020-20160331 /
I:(DE-He78)E132-20160331},
pnm = {315 - Imaging and radiooncology (POF3-315)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-315},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:27193776},
doi = {10.1007/s00330-016-4400-9},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/119234},
}