Diagnostic and Practical Value of Abbreviated Contrast Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Breast Cancer Diagnostics

Simple Summary Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women and requires early diagnosis and treatment. Although MRI is the most efficient method of detecting breast cancer, its standard protocol is time-consuming and expensive, making it less accessible. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the modified abbreviated MRI protocol (AMRP) to that of the standard magnetic resonance protocol. The study shows that both MRI protocols have comparable accuracy (specificity and sensitivity) for detecting breast cancer. These findings suggest that the abbreviated MRI protocol can reduce the examination and image reading time, as well as costs, while maintaining the diagnostic accuracy of a full diagnostic protocol. The key finding is that AMRP can provide appropriate diagnostic accuracy for breast cancer for a much wider population and reduce MRI waiting lists. Background: Although MRI is the most efficient method of detecting breast cancer, its standard protocol is time-consuming and expensive. The objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the modified innovative abbreviated MRI protocol (AMRP) and the standard magnetic resonance protocol (SMRP) when detecting breast cancer. Methods: The research involved 477 patients referred for breast MRI due to suspected lesions. They were randomly assigned to the AMRP group (N = 232) or the SMRP group (N = 245). The AMRP comprised one native (contrast-free) and four post-contrast dynamic sequences of T1-weighted volume imaging for breast assessment (VIBRANT) and 3d MIP (maximum intensity projection) lasting for eight minutes. All the patients underwent a core biopsy of their lesions and histopathological analysis. Results: The groups were comparable regarding the pre-screening and post-diagnostic characteristics and were of average (+/- SD) age at breast cancer diagnosis of 53.6 +/- 12.7 years. There was no significant difference between the two protocols in terms of specificity or sensitivity of breast cancer diagnosis. The sensitivity (95% Cis) of the AMRP was 99.05% (96.6-99.9%), and its specificity was 59.09% (36.4-79.3%), whereas the sensitivity of the SMRP was 98.12% (95.3-99.5%) and its specificity was 68.75% (50.0-83.9%). Most of the tumors comprised one solid lesion in one of the breasts (77.3%), followed by multicentric tumors (16%), bilateral tumors (4.3%), and multifocal tumors (1.7%). The average size of tumors was approximately 14 mm (ranging from 3 mm to 72 mm). Conclusion: Our innovative AMR protocol showed comparable specificity and sensitivity for the diagnosis of breast cancer when compared to SMRP, which is the "gold standard" for histopathological diagnosis. This can lead to great savings in terms of the time and cost of imaging and interpretation.