Rominger, M.B.M.B.RomingerFournell, D.D.FournellNadar, B.T.B.T.NadarBehrens, S.N.M.S.N.M.BehrensFigiel, J.H.J.H.FigielKeil, B.B.KeilHeverhagen, J.T.J.T.Heverhagen2022-03-042022-03-042009https://publica.fraunhofer.de/handle/publica/22099610.1007/s00330-008-1243-zThe aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of a dedicated software tool for automated and semiautomated volume measurement in contrast-enhanced (CE) magnetic resonance mammography (MRM). Ninety-six breast lesions with histopathological workup (27 benign, 69 malignant) were re-evaluated by different volume measurement techniques. Volumes of all lesions were extracted automatically (AVM) and semiautomatically (SAVM) from CE 3D MRM and compared with manual 3D contour segmentation (manual volume measurement, MVM, reference measurement technique) and volume estimates based on maximum diameter measurement (MDM). Compared with MVM as reference method MDM, AVM and SAVM underestimated lesion volumes by 63.8%, 30.9% and 21.5%, respectively, with significantly different accuracy for benign (102.4%, 18.4% and 11.4%) and malignant (54.9%, 33.0% and 23.1%) lesions (p<0.05). Inter- and intraobserver reproducibility was best for AVM (mean difference±2SD, 1.0±9.7% and 1.8±12. 1%) followed by SAVM (4.3±25.7% and 4.3±7.9%), MVM (2.3±38.2% and 8.6±31.8%) and MDM (33.9±128.4% and 9.3±55.9%). SAVM is more accurate for volume assessment of breast lesions than MDM and AVM. Volume measurement is less accurate for malignant than benign lesions.en616journal article