Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has a dominant and increasingly important role in breast imaging, particularly for screening of women at high risk of developing breast cancer, staging of breast cancers, follow-up after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and evaluating axillary lymph nodes when a primary site cannot be found by mammography (1-3). At present, it takes about 30 to 40 minutes to perform a breast MRI in accordance with the good practice guidelines of the European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EU-SOMA) (4). This length of time is relatively long, and the examination presents high direct and indirect costs that limit its wider use (5-11).Recently, Kuhl et al. (4) has shown that in high-risk women, the use of an abbreviated protocol is a suitable option that does not compromise the sensitivity or the specificity relative to the conventional complete protocol, thanks to specific characteristics of breast cancers that occur in high-risk women.
PURPOSEWe aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy and interpretation time of an abbreviated protocol relative to the complete protocol of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with the use of breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). Between-reader and between-protocol variability for BI-RADS classification and influence of reader expertise on diagnostic accuracies were also evaluated.
METHODSWe conducted a retrospective reader study in 90 women who underwent breast MRI: 30 benign examinations (graded as American College of Radiology [ACR] 1 or 2), 30 examinations graded as ACR 3 and 30 examinations requiring a histologic proof (graded as ACR 4 or 5). Two radiologists independently reviewed the protocols. The reference standard was 24 months of imaging follow-up (66.6%, n=60), percutaneous biopsy at the12th month imaging follow-up (5.5%, n=5), and breast surgery (27.9%, n=25). Analysis was done on a per-breast basis. There were 26 cancers in 168 breasts (15.1%)
RESULTSInterpretation time was higher for the complete protocol (mean difference: 84 s, 95% CI [67;101] for senior and 83 s, 95% CI [70;95] for junior reader; P < 0.001). The reliability of BI-RADS classification between both protocols was very good with intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.89 for junior reader and 0.98 for senior reader; the inter-reader reliability was 0.94 and 0.90 for the complete and abbreviated protocols, respectively. For senior reader, the abbreviated and complete protocols yielded 95.1% and 94.4% specificity and 100% sensitivity.
CONCLUSIONOur data provide corroborating evidence that abbreviated protocols decrease interpretation time without compromising sensitivity or specificity. There was a high level of concordance between the abbreviated and complete protocols and between the two readers.