Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 21, 2026

In vivo Imaging of Optic Nerve Fiber Integrity by Contrast-Enhanced MRI in Mice
Published on: July 22, 2014
Impact of Background Parenchymal Enhancement on Diagnostic Performance in Screening Breast MRI
Dorothy A Sippo1, Geoffrey M Rutledge1, Sarah F Mercaldo1
1Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Avon Comprehensive Breast Evaluation Center, Wang Ambulatory Care Building, Suite 240, 15 Parkman Street, Boston MA, 02114.
Rationale And Objectives:
To evaluate the impact of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on diagnostic performance in screening breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
Materials And Methods:
Consecutive screening breast MRIs performed at our institution from 2011 to 2014 were reviewed in a HIPAA-compliant manner with institutional review board approval. BPE was extracted from radiology reports and examinations grouped into minimal/mild (lower) or moderate/marked (higher) BPE. Performance measures were compared between the two groups with Pearson's χ2 test and with logistic regression to adjust for possible confounders of age, screening indication, mammographic density, available prior MRI, and examination year, using lower BPE as the reference group.
Results:
For 4686 screening MRIs performed in 2446 women, BPE was reported as minimal or mild for 3975 (85%) examinations and moderate or marked for 711(15%). Following logistic regression to adjust for multiple confounders, abnormal interpretation rate (AIR) significantly differed between the two BPE groups. AIR was 13% (89/711) in the higher BPE group versus 7% (295/3975) in the lower BPE group with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.37 (95% confidence interval: 1.03, 1.82). After adjustment, all other performance metrics, including cancer detection rate, positive predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity did not significantly differ between the two BPE groups (P > 0.05).
Conclusion:
Higher BPE on screening MRI is associated with higher abnormal interpretation rate, with no impact on cancer detection rate, sensitivity, or specificity.
More Related Videos
05:56Author Spotlight: Enhancing Diagnostic Strategies and Biomarker Development for Comprehensive Lung Function Analysis
Published on: August 9, 2024
15:48Tracking the Mammary Architectural Features and Detecting Breast Cancer with Magnetic Resonance Diffusion Tensor Imaging
Published on: December 15, 2014
Related Concept Videos
Difference from Background: Limit of Detection
The LOD indicates the presence or absence...
Background and Environment Affect Phenotype
An example of how genetic background affects phenotype can be seen in horses. The Extension gene in horses is responsible for their coat color. A wild-type gene (EE) produces black pigment in the coat, while a mutant gene (ee) produces red pigment. A...
Impact of Groups on Groups
Impact
When particles with different initial velocities collide, they induce deformation by applying equal and opposite impulses. At the point of maximum deformation, the particles move together with...
Self-Evaluation: Self-Enhancement and Self-Verification
Impact Loading
In cases of elastic deformation,...