Abstract:Objective:This study aimed to evaluate the performance of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) abbreviated protocol (AP) in diagnosing breast neoplasms.Methods:We retrospectively analyzed the data of 86 patients who had undergone breast MRI examinations and compared the images using an AP and full diagnostic protocol (FDP). The AP consisted of axial T2-weighted imaging (T2WI), diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and four-phase dynamic enhancement sequences. The FDP consisted of sagittal T2WI, axial T2WI, T1-weighted imaging, DWI, and seven-phase dynamic enhancement sequences. All the images were analyzed using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). The consistencies between the different protocols were then calculated. With the pathological diagnosis as the gold standard, the diagnostic capabilities of the two protocols were compared.Result:Two radiologists analyzed the AP and FDP images. The consistencies in the BI-RADS between the different protocols were 0.856 and 0.900, and those in time-signal intensity curves (TICs) were 0.822 and 0.922. Within the same protocol, the consistencies in the BI-RADS between different radiologists were 0.744 and 0.822, and those in TICs were 0.889 and 0.878. No significant differences were found ( P>0.05). In terms of diagnosing malignant neoplasms using the BI-RADS, the sensitivities of the AP and FDP were 89.8% (95 %CI: 0.785-0.958) and 91.5% (95 %CI: 0.806-0.968), respectively; their specificities were 71.0% (95 %CI: 0.518-0.851) and 77.4% (95 %CI: 0.585-0.897), respectively; and the areas under the curves (AUCs) were 0.804 (95 %CI: 0.698-0.910) and 0.845 (95 %CI: 0.748-0.941), respectively. Diagnosing malignant neoplasms using TICs, the sensitivities of the AP and FDP were 86.4% (95 %CI: 0.745-0.936) and 89.8% (95 %CI: 0.785-0.958), respectively; their specificities were 61.3% (95 %CI: 0.423-0.776) and 67.7% (95 %CI: 0.485-0.827), respectively, and the AUCs were 0.739 (95 %CI: 0.623-0.855) and 0.788 (95 %CI: 0.679-0.897), respectively. There was no significant difference between the AP and FDP ( P>0.05). The MRI acquisition times of the AP and FDP were 11.97±0.94 min and 21.25±1.12 min, respectively, with a significant difference ( P<0.001). The average reading time was reduced by 13.5% using the AP compared with that using the FDP. Conclusion:Compared with the FDP, the AP reduced the acquisition time and maintained the diagnostic accuracy, which can be used as an improved pattern for MRI screening in high-risk populations of breast neoplasms.

3D amide proton transfer-weighted imaging may be useful for diagnosing early-stage breast cancer: a prospective monocentric study

Comparative Study of Amide Proton Transfer‐Weighted Imaging and Intravoxel Incoherent Motion Imaging in Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Evaluation

Limited role of DWI with apparent diffusion coefficient mapping in breast lesions presenting as non-mass enhancement on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI

Three-Dimensional Turbo-Spin-Echo Amide Proton Transfer-weighted and Intravoxel Incoherent Motion Imaging MRI assessing the Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

A Study of a Breast MRI Abbreviated Protocol for Breast Neoplasm Screening

Three‐dimensional turbo‐spin‐echo amide proton transfer‐weighted mri for cervical cancer: A preliminary study

Preliminary exploration of amide proton transfer weighted imaging in differentiation between benign and malignant bone tumors

Breast Amide Proton Transfer Imaging at 3 T: Diagnostic Performance and Association With Pathologic Characteristics

Non-invasive Differentiation of Endometrial Adenocarcinoma from Benign Lesions in the Uterus by Utilization of Amide Proton Transfer-Weighted MRI

Amide Proton Transfer‐Weighted Imaging in Assessing the Aggressive and Proliferative Potential of Bladder Cancer

Three-dimensional amide proton transfer-weighted and intravoxel incoherent motion imaging for predicting bone metastasis in patients with prostate cancer: A pilot study

Early prediction of pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy of breast tumors: a comparative study using amide proton transfer-weighted, diffusion weighted and dynamic contrast enhanced MRI

Comparative analysis of amide proton transfer and diffusion-weighted imaging for assessing Ki-67, p53 and PD-L1 expression in bladder cancer

Differentiation of Malignant and Benign Head and Neck Tumors with Amide Proton Transfer-Weighted MR Imaging

Amide proton transfer-weighted MRI for renal tumors: Comparison with diffusion-weighted imaging

Amide Proton Transfer Weighted MRI in Differential Diagnosis of Ovarian Masses with Cystic Components: A Preliminary Study.

Amide proton transfer weighted imaging combined with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in predicting lymphovascular space invasion and deep stromal invasion of IB1-IIA1 cervical cancer

Evaluation of Amide Proton Transfer Imaging for Bladder Cancer Histopathologic Features: A Comparative Study with Diffusion- Weighted Imaging

Combining Amide Proton Transfer-Weighted and Arterial Spin Labeling Imaging to Differentiate Solitary Brain Metastases from Glioblastomas

Using amide proton transfer-weighted MRI to non-invasively differentiate mismatch repair deficient and proficient tumors in endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma

Predicting Histopathological Types and Molecular Subtype of Breast Tumors: A Comparative Study Using Amide Proton Transfer-Weighted Imaging, Intravoxel Incoherent Motion and Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging.