1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
DCEMRI of breast lesions: Is kinetic analysis equally effective for both mass and nonmass-like enhancement?
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1118/1.2936220
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/35/7/10.1118/1.2936220
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/35/7/10.1118/1.2936220

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Examples of four breast lesions with measured and EMM fitted kinetic curves. For each kinetic curve, the measured signal intensity values are indicated with triangles, and the fitted EMM curve with solid lines. From the top to bottom: Benign mass lesion, malignant mass lesion, benign nonmass lesion, and malignant nonmass lesion. The lesions are indicated by a white arrow.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

The average value standard deviation for each EMM parameter in benign (white bars) and malignant (gray bars) lesions, stratified by type of enhancement as mass or nonmass. After correcting for multiple tests of significance, the parameters SER and demonstrated significant differences among malignant and benign mass lesions.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Fitted binormal ROC curves generated by the ROCKIT software are shown for the EMM parameters with the highest, and lowest, values in mass and nonmass lesions. SER (solid blue line) and A (solid red line) had the highest values in mass and nonmass lesions, respectively. A (dashed blue line) and (dashed red line) had the lowest values in mass and nonmass lesions, respectively.

Tables

Generic image for table
TABLE I.

A list and description of the EMM parameters derived from the primary parameters , , and .

Generic image for table
TABLE II.

Distributions of BI-RADS categories for the qualitative assessment of the initial rise and delayed phased of kinetic curves for benign and malignant lesions, as well as the subtypes of benign and malignant lesions considered here. There were two benign and two malignant lesions classified as focus type enhancement, which do not appear in the table below.

Generic image for table
TABLE III.

The primary and derived diagnostic parameters calculated from the EMM in malignant and benign lesions. Reported values are mean standard deviation of the sample for all cases. The value after Student -test is shown for each parameter, along with the required value for significance according to the Holm–Bonferroni correction for multiple tests of significance. Numbers in bold indicate that there was a statistically significant difference between benign and malignant lesions, according to the Student’s -test and after using the Holm–Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapm/journal/medphys/35/7/10.1118/1.2936220
2008-06-13
2014-04-18
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: DCEMRI of breast lesions: Is kinetic analysis equally effective for both mass and nonmass-like enhancement?
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/35/7/10.1118/1.2936220
10.1118/1.2936220
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM