The Adjacent Vessel Sign on Breast MRI: New Data and a Subgroup Analysis for 1,084 Histologically Verified Cases

Overview

Journal Korean J Radiol

Specialty Radiology

Date 2010 Mar 2

PMID 20191065

Citations 19

Authors

Matthias Dietzel

Pascal A T Baltzer

Tibor Vag

Aimee Herzog

Mieczyslaw Gajda

Oumar Camara

Werner A Kaiser

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: The adjacent vessel sign (AVS) is a descriptor for differentiating malignant from benign breast lesions on breast MRI (bMRI). This investigation was designed to verify the previous reports on the diagnostic accuracy of AVS and to assess correlation between AVS, histopathological diagnosis, lesion size and lesion grade.

Materials And Methods: This study was approved by the local ethical committee. Experienced radiologists evaluated 1,084 lesions. The exclusion criteria were no histological verification after bMRI and breast interventions that were done up to one year before bMRI (surgery, core biopsy, chemo- or radiation therapy). The native and dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted series were acquired using standardized protocols. The AVS was rated positive if a vessel leading to a lesion could be visualized. Prevalence of an AVS was correlated with the lesions' size, grade and histology using Chi-square-tests.

Results: The AVS was significantly associated with malignancy (p < 0.001; sensitivity: 47%, specificity: 88%, positive-predictive-value [PPV]: 85%). Malignant lesions > 2 cm more often presented with an AVS than did those malignant lesions < 2 cm (p < 0.0001; sensitivity: 65%, PPV: 90%). There was no correlation of the AVS with the tumor grade. The prevalence of an AVS didn't significantly differ between invasive lobular carcinomas versus ductal carcinomas. In situ cancers were less frequently associated with an AVS (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: The adjacent vessel sign was significantly associated with malignancy. Thus, it can be used to accurately assess breast lesions on bMRI. In this study, the AVS was particularly associated with advanced and invasive carcinomas.

Citing Articles

Systematic evaluation of MRI-based characterization of tumor-associated vascular morphology and hemodynamics via a dynamic digital phantom.

Wu C, Hormuth 2nd D, Easley T, Pineda F, Karczmar G, Yankeelov T J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2024; 11(2):024002.

PMID: 38463607 PMC: 10921778. DOI: 10.1117/1.JMI.11.2.024002.

Association of peritumoral region features assessed on breast MRI and prognosis of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Zhao S, Li Y, Ning N, Liang H, Wu Y, Wu Q Eur Radiol. 2024; 34(9):6108-6120.

PMID: 38334760 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-024-10612-y.

Diagnostic value of preoperative examination for evaluating margin status in breast cancer.

Liu P, Zhao Y, Rong D, Li K, Wang Y, Zhao J World J Clin Cases. 2023; 11(20):4852-4864.

PMID: 37583993 PMC: 10424046. DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v11.i20.4852.

Diagnostic value of Kaiser score combined with breast vascular assessment from breast MRI for the characterization of breast lesions.

Zhou X, Liu L, He S, Yao H, Chen L, Deng C Front Oncol. 2023; 13:1165405.

PMID: 37483510 PMC: 10359820. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1165405.

Peritumoral imaging features of thymic epithelial tumors for the prediction of transcapsular invasion: beyond intratumoral analysis.

Park J, Park B, Hong J, Cha J, Shin K, Lee J Diagn Interv Radiol. 2023; 29(1):109-116.

PMID: 36960547 PMC: 10679598. DOI: 10.4274/dir.2022.21803.

References

Weidner N, Semple J, Welch W, Folkman J . Tumor angiogenesis and metastasis--correlation in invasive breast carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 1991; 324(1):1-8. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199101033240101. View

Kaiser W . [MR mammography--a critical stocktaking]. Rofo. 1996; 165(5):425-7. DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-1015784. View

Fischer D, Wurdinger S, Boettcher J, Malich A, Kaiser W . Further signs in the evaluation of magnetic resonance mammography: a retrospective study. Invest Radiol. 2005; 40(7):430-5. DOI: 10.1097/01.rli.0000167138.52283.aa. View

Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E . Breast carcinoma: effect of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging on the therapeutic approach. Radiology. 1999; 213(3):881-8. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.213.3.r99dc01881. View

Newcombe R . Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods. Stat Med. 1998; 17(8):857-72. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19980430)17:8<857::aid-sim777>3.0.co;2-e. View

Sardanelli F, Fausto A, Esseridou A, Di Leo G, Kirchin M . Gadobenate dimeglumine as a contrast agent for dynamic breast magnetic resonance imaging: effect of higher initial enhancement thresholds on diagnostic performance. Invest Radiol. 2008; 43(4):236-42. DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e318160678d. View

Fischer D, Malich A, Wurdinger S, Boettcher J, Dietzel M, Kaiser W . The adjacent vessel on dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006; 187(2):W147-51. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.05.0377. View

Dietzel M, Baltzer P, Vag T, Gajda M, Camara O, Kaiser W . The hook sign for differential diagnosis of malignant from benign lesions in magnetic resonance mammography: experience in a study of 1084 histologically verified cases. Acta Radiol. 2010; 51(2):137-43. DOI: 10.3109/02841850903463638. View

Weidner N, Folkman J, Pozza F, Bevilacqua P, Allred E, Moore D . Tumor angiogenesis: a new significant and independent prognostic indicator in early-stage breast carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1992; 84(24):1875-87. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/84.24.1875. View

10.

Ko E, Han B, Shin J, Kang S . Breast MRI for evaluating patients with metastatic axillary lymph node and initially negative mammography and sonography. Korean J Radiol. 2007; 8(5):382-9. PMC: 2626808. DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2007.8.5.382. View

11.

Thomas M, Lipnick S, Velan S, Liu X, Banakar S, Binesh N . Investigation of breast cancer using two-dimensional MRS. NMR Biomed. 2008; 22(1):77-91. DOI: 10.1002/nbm.1310. View

12.

Renz D, Baltzer P, Kullnig P, Bottcher J, Vag T, Gajda M . [Clinical value of computer-assisted analysis in MR mammography. A comparison between two systems and three observers with different levels of experience]. Rofo. 2008; 180(11):968-76. DOI: 10.1055/s-2008-1027772. View

13.

Fridman V, Humblet C, Bonjean K, Boniver J . Assessment of tumor angiogenesis in invasive breast carcinomas: absence of correlation with prognosis and pathological factors. Virchows Arch. 2001; 437(6):611-7. DOI: 10.1007/s004280000292. View

14.

Park J, Park J . Human in-vivo 31P MR spectroscopy of benign and malignant breast tumors. Korean J Radiol. 2001; 2(2):80-6. PMC: 2718106. DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2001.2.2.80. View

15.

Kuhl C . Current status of breast MR imaging. Part 2. Clinical applications. Radiology. 2007; 244(3):672-91. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2443051661. View

16.

Tardivon A, Athanasiou A, Thibault F, El Khoury C . Breast imaging and reporting data system (BIRADS): magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2006; 61(2):212-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2006.08.036. View

17.

Folkman J, Shing Y . Angiogenesis. J Biol Chem. 1992; 267(16):10931-4. View

18.

Mountford C, Ramadan S, Stanwell P, Malycha P . Proton MRS of the breast in the clinical setting. NMR Biomed. 2008; 22(1):54-64. DOI: 10.1002/nbm.1301. View

19.

Williams T, DeMartini W, Partridge S, Peacock S, Lehman C . Breast MR imaging: computer-aided evaluation program for discriminating benign from malignant lesions. Radiology. 2007; 244(1):94-103. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2441060634. View

20.

Vassiou K, Kanavou T, Vlychou M, Poultsidi A, Athanasiou E, Arvanitis D . Characterization of breast lesions with CE-MR multimodal morphological and kinetic analysis: comparison with conventional mammography and high-resolution ultrasound. Eur J Radiol. 2008; 70(1):69-76. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.01.012. View