Breast MRI: Kaiser score agreement with and without diffusion
Main Article Content
Keywords
Breast Neoplasm, Diagnostic Imaging, Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Abstract
Abstract
Background: Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in Mexico, frequently diagnosed in young women and at advanced stages. Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the most sensitive and specific method for its diagnosis, although access to it is limited. This study evaluates the concordance between the Kaiser score (KS) with and without the use of DWI/ADC sequences in patients with suspected breast cancer.
Objective: To analyze the concordance between the Kaiser score obtained with DWI/ADC sequences (KS) and without them (KS-).
Material and methods: A cross-sectional study with 48 patients conducted between October 2022 and October 2024 at the Hospital de Especialidades of the Centro Médico Nacional de Occidente, Guadalajara, Mexico. Cohen's Kappa statistic was used to evaluate concordance.
Results: A total of 48 breast MRIs from women with an average age of 44.33 years were analyzed. The KS scores were: 1 with score 4, 6 with score 6, 4 with score 7, 9 with score 8, 9 with score 9, 6 with score 10, and 15 with score 11. The KS- scores were: 1 with score 4, 6 with score 6, 3 with score 7, 9 with score 8, 9 with score 9, 6 with score 10, and 16 with score 11. Concordance was almost perfect (Kappa = 0.941, p < 0.001).
Conclusions: The Kaiser score without DWI/ADC (KS-) has almost perfect concordance with the score obtained with DWI/ADC (KS). Omitting DWI/ADC could reduce acquisition time, increase efficiency, and improve patient tolerance.
References
1. Admoun C, Mayrovitz HN. The Etiology of Breast Cancer. En: Mayrovitz HN, editors. Breast Cancer. 1st ed. Brisbane (Australia). Exon Publications; 2022. doi:10.36255/exon-publications-breast-cancer.
2. Łukasiewicz S, Czeczelewski M, Forma A, et al. Breast Cancer-Epidemiology, Risk Factors, Classification, Prognostic Markers, and Current Treatment Strategies-An Updated Review. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(17):4287. doi: 10.3390/cancers13174287.
3. Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2024;74(3):229-263. doi: 10.3322/caac.21834.
4. Villarreal-Garza C, Platas A, Miaja M, et al. Young Women With Breast Cancer in Mexico: Results of the Pilot Phase of the Joven & Fuerte Prospective Cohort. JCO Glob Oncol. 2020;6:395-406. doi: 10.1200/JGO.19.00264.
5. López-Muñoz E, Salamanca-Gómez F. Cáncer de mama. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc. 2020;58 (1):S1-3. doi: https://doi.org/10.24875/RMIMSS.M21000109.
6. Cazap E. Breast Cancer in Latin America: A Map of the Disease in the Region. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2018 May 23;38:451-456. doi: 10.1200/EDBK_201315.
7. Torres-Román JS, Ybaseta-Medina J, Loli-Guevara S, et al. Disparities in breast cancer mortality among Latin American women: trends and predictions for 2030. BMC Public Health. 2023;23(1):1449. doi: 10.1186/s12889-023-16328-w.
8. Ayala N, Barchuk S, Inurrigarro G, et al. Status of breast cancer in Latin American: Results of the breast cancer revealed initiative. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2023;181:103890. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2022.103890.
9. Alvarez-Pardo S, Romero-Pérez EM, Camberos-Castañeda N, et al. Quality of Life in Breast Cancer Survivors in Relation to Age, Type of Surgery and Length of Time since First Treatment. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(23):16229. doi: 10.3390/ijerph192316229.
10. Siegel RL, Giaquinto AN, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2024. CA Cancer J Clin. 2024;74(1):12-49. doi: 10.3322/caac.21820. Epub 2024 Jan 17. Erratum in: CA Cancer J Clin. 2024;74(2):203. doi: 10.3322/caac.21830.
11. Bhushan A, Gonsalves A, Menon JU. Current State of Breast Cancer Diagnosis, Treatment, and Theranostics. Pharmaceutics. 2021;13(5):723. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics13050723
12. Newstead GM. Breast MRI interpretation: Text and online case analysis for screening and diagnosis. Newstead GM, editor. New York, NY: Thieme Medical; 2021.
13. Mann RM, Cho N, Moy L. Breast MRI: State of the Art. Radiology. 2019;292(3):520-536. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019182947
14. Lopez-Mendez JMI, Delgadillo-Cristerna R, Rodriguez-Pulido G. Unifocal, multifocal or multicentric breast cancer distribution patterns on multiplanar breast MRI: a technical note. J Mex Fed Radiol Imaging. 2024;3(1):56-61. doi: 10.24875/JMEXFRI.24000001.
15. Dietzel M, Baltzer PAT. How to use the Kaiser score as a clinical decision rule for diagnosis in multiparametric breast MRI: a pictorial essay. Insights Imaging. 2018 Jun;9(3):325-335. doi: 10.1007/s13244-018-0611-8.
16. Solomon E, Nissan N, Schmidt R, et al. Removing silicone artifacts in diffusion-weighted breast MRI by means of shift-resolved spatiotemporally encoding. Magn Reson Med. 2016;75(5):2064-2071. doi: 10.1002/mrm.25757.
17. Murali S, Ding H, Adedeji F, et al. Bringing MRI to low- and middle-income countries: Directions, challenges and potential solutions. NMR Biomed. 2024;37(7):e4992. doi: 10.1002/nbm.4992.
18. Tollens F, Baltzer PAT, Froelich MF, et al. Economic evaluation of breast MRI in screening - a systematic review and basic approach to cost-effectiveness analyses. Front Oncol. 2023;13:1292268. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1292268.
19. Houser M, Barreto D, Mehta A, et al. Current and Future Directions of Breast MRI. J Clin Med. 2021;10(23):5668. doi: 10.3390/jcm10235668.
20. Kuhl CK. Abbreviated Breast MRI: State of the Art. Radiology. 2024;310(3):e221822. doi: 10.1148/radiol.221822.
21. Pötsch N, Clauser P, Kapetas P, et al. Enhancing the Kaiser score for lesion characterization in unenhanced breast MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2024;176:111520. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2024.111520.
22. Grimm LJ, Mango VL, Harvey JA, et al. Implementation of Abbreviated Breast MRI for Screening: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2022;218(2):202-212. doi: 10.2214/AJR.21.26349.
23. Erkan M, Ozcan SGG. Diagnostic Performance of Kaiser Score for Characterization of Breast Lesions on Modified Abbreviated Breast MRI and Comparison with Full-Protocol Breast MRI. J Clin Med. 2025;14(1):264. doi: 10.3390/jcm14010264.
24. Lawal O, Regelous P, Omiyi D. Supporting claustrophobic patients during Magnetic Resonance Imaging examination- the patient perspective. Radiography (Lond). 2023;29(6):1108-1114. doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2023.09.008.
25. Iwan E, Yang J, Enders J, et al. Patient preferences for development in MRI scanner design: a survey of claustrophobic patients in a randomized study. Eur Radiol. 2021;31(3):1325-1335. doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-07060-9.
26. Edelstein WA, Mahesh M, Carrino JA. MRI: time is dose--and money and versatility. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7(8):650-2. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2010.05.002.
27. Bujang MA, Baharum N. Guidelines of the minimum sample size requirementes for Cohen's Kappa. Biotatistics. 2017;14(2):1-9. doi: 10.2427/12267.
28. Bujang MA, Omar ED, Foo DHP, et al. Sample size determination for conducting a pilot study to assess reliability of a questionnaire. Restor Dent Endod. 2024;49(1):e3. doi: 10.5395/rde.2024.49.e3.
29. JASP Team (2024). JASP (Version 0.19.3) [Computer software]. https://jasp-stats.org/
Article Sidebar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors retain their copyright and grant the Revista Médica del IMSS the right of first publication. Articles are distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which allows sharing as long as the author and the original source are properly credited.