Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 18, 2026
Clinical Imaging of Microwave Mammography
Published on: November 14, 2025
Comparison between qualitative and quantitative assessment of background parenchymal enhancement on breast MRI
Akshat C Pujara1, Artem Mikheev1,2, Henry Rusinek1,2
1Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
Background:
Potential clinical implications of the level of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on breast MRI are increasing. Currently, BPE is typically evaluated subjectively. Tests of concordance between subjective BPE assessment and computer-assisted quantified BPE have not been reported.
Purpose Or Hypothesis:
To compare subjective radiologist assessment of BPE with objective quantified parenchymal enhancement (QPE).
Study Type:
Cross-sectional observational study.
Population:
Between 7/24/2015 and 11/27/2015, 104 sequential patients (ages 23 - 81 years, mean 49 years) without breast cancer underwent breast MRI and were included in this study.
Field Strength/Sequence:
3T; fat suppressed axial T2, axial T1, and axial fat suppressed T1 before and after intravenous contrast.
Assessment:
Four breast imagers graded BPE at 90 and 180 s after contrast injection on a 4-point scale (a-d). Fibroglandular tissue masks were generated using a phantom-validated segmentation algorithm, and were co-registered to pre- and postcontrast fat suppressed images to define the region of interest. QPE was calculated.
Statistical Tests:
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses and kappa coefficients (k) were used to compare subjective BPE with QPE.
Results:
ROC analyses indicated that subjective BPE at 90 s was best predicted by quantified QPE ≤20.2 = a, 20.3-25.2 = b, 25.3-50.0 = c, >50.0 = d, and at 180 s by quantified QPE ≤ 32.2 = a, 32.3-38.3 = b, 38.4-74.5 = c, >74.5 = d. Agreement between subjective BPE and QPE was slight to fair at 90 s (k = 0.20-0.36) and 180 s (k = 0.19-0.28). At higher levels of QPE, agreement between subjective BPE and QPE significantly decreased for all four radiologists at 90 s (P ≤ 0.004) and for three of four radiologists at 180 s (P ≤ 0.004).
Data Conclusion:
Radiologists were less consistent with QPE as QPE increased.
Level Of Evidence:
3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1685-1691.
More Related Videos
15:48Tracking the Mammary Architectural Features and Detecting Breast Cancer with Magnetic Resonance Diffusion Tensor Imaging
Published on: December 15, 2014
08:13In Vivo Quantitative Assessment of Myocardial Structure, Function, Perfusion and Viability Using Cardiac Micro-computed Tomography
Published on: February 16, 2016
Related Concept Videos
01:24Magnetic Resonance Imaging
01:17Assessment of Diffusion and Perfusion
The Role of Diffusion in Respiration
Diffusion is the process by which molecules move from an area of higher concentration to an area of lower concentration. In the respiratory system, this...
01:30Radiological Investigation II: MRI and Ventilation Perfusion Scan
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Ventilation Perfusion Scans are two radiological investigations that offer detailed diagnostic images of the body, particularly lung structures.
MRI
MRI uses magnetic fields and radiofrequency signals to distinguish between normal and abnormal tissues. This technology provides a more detailed diagnostic image than CT scans, enabling it to characterize pulmonary nodules, stage bronchogenic carcinoma, and evaluate inflammatory activity in...
01:27Imaging Studies IV: Magnetic Resonance Imaging