BREAST RADIOLOGY / ORIGINAL PAPER
Factors associated with false-negative Kaiser score results in breast magnetic resonance imaging
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Radiology, İzmir City Hospital, İzmir, Türkiye
Submission date: 2025-11-24
Final revision date: 2026-01-24
Acceptance date: 2026-01-25
Publication date: 2026-03-17
Corresponding author
Hülya Çetin Tunçez
Department of Radiology, İzmir City Hospital, Şevket İnce St., 35530 İzmir, Türkiye
Pol J Radiol, 2026; 91(1): 140-147
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Purpose:
To evaluate the Kaiser score (KS) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients diagnosed with breast cancer and to identify clinical, pathological, and radiological factors associated with false-negative Kaiser score.
Material and methods:
This retrospective study included 120 histopathologically proven breast cancer masses. Non-mass enhancements were excluded. The KS of each lesion was determined based on MRI features. Clinicopathological features and imaging findings were also analyzed. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with false-negative KS results in breast cancer diagnosis.
Results:
One hundred eleven (92%) of the cases had a KS of 5 or higher, yielding a true-positive result. Nine (8%) had a score below 5, yielding a false-negative result. In univariate regression analysis, a history of breast cancer (p = 0.008), tumor size less than 2 cm (p = 0.001), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positivity (p = 0.049) were found to be statistically significantly associated with false-negative KS. In multivariate analysis, only tumor size was found to be associated with false-negative KS (p = 0.018).
Conclusions:
The Kaiser score carries a risk of false-negative KS, especially in small tumors. Therefore, evaluation in conjunction with clinical risk factors, histopathological features, and additional imaging parameters is recommended. Furthermore, KS is a valuable decision-support tool in breast MRI.
REFERENCES (14)
1.
Meng L, Zhao X, Guo J, Lu L, Cheng M, Xing Q, et al. Improved differential diagnosis based on BI-RADS descriptors and apparent diffusion coefficient for breast lesions: a multiparametric MRI analysis compared to the Kaiser score. Acad Radiol 2023; 30: S93-S103. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2023.03.035.
2.
Baltzer PAT, Krug KB, Dietzel M. Evidence-based and structured diagnosis in breast MRI using the Kaiser score. Rofo 2022; 194: 1216-1228.
3.
Istomin A, Masarwah A, Vanninen R, Okuma H, Sudah M. Diagnostic performance of the Kaiser score for characterizing lesions on breast MRI with comparison to a multiparametric classification system, Eur J Radiol 2021; 138: 109659. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109659.
4.
Wang H, Gao L, Chen X, Wang SJ. Quantitative evaluation of the Kaiser score in diagnosing breast dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for patients with high-grade background parenchymal enhancement. Quant Imaging Med Surg 2023; 13: 6384-6394.
5.
Wang Q, Fu F, Chen Y, Yang D, Zhang J, Yu H, et al. Application of the Kaiser score by MRI in patients with breast lesions identified by ultrasound and mammography. Diagn Interv Radiol 2022; 28: 322-328.
6.
Mohammadzadeh S, Mohebbi A, Moradi Z, Abdi A, Mohammadi A, Hakim PK, et al. Diagnostic performance of Kaiser score in the evaluation of breast cancer using MRI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol 2025; 186: 112055. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2025.112055.
7.
Zhang B, Guo Z, Lei Z, Liang W, Chen X. Kaiser score diagnosis of breast MRI lesions: factors associated with false-negative and false-positive results. Eur J Radiol 2024; 178: 111641. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2024.111641.
8.
Avdan Aslan A, Gültekin S. Diagnostic performance of Kaiser score in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer: factors associated with false-negative results. Eur J Radiol 2023; 164: 110864. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.110864.
9.
Jajodia A, Sindhwani G, Pasricha S, Prosch H, Puri S, Dewan A, et al. Application of the Kaiser score to increase diagnostic accuracy in equivocal lesions on diagnostic mammograms referred for MR mammography. Eur J Radiol 2021; 134: 109413. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.109413.
10.
Song D, Kang BJ, Kim SH, Lee J, Park GE. The frequency and causes of not-detected breast malignancy in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Diagnostics 2022; 12: 2575. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12112575.
11.
Santamaría G, Velasco M, Bargalló X, Caparrós X, Farrús B, Luis FP. Radiologic and pathologic findings in breast tumors with high signal intensity on T2-weighted MR images. Radiographics 2010; 30: 533-548.
12.
Yoo H, Kim BH, Kim HH, Cha JH, Shin HJ, Lee TJ. Local recurrence of breast cancer in reconstructed breasts using TRAM flap after skin-sparing mastectomy: clinical and imaging features. Eur Radiol 2014; 24: 2220-2226.
13.
Mouabbi JA, Hassan A, Lim B, Hortobagyi GN, Tripathy D, Layman RM. Invasive lobular carcinoma: an understudied emergent subtype of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2022; 193: 253-264.
14.
Karabulut UE, Celik Yabul F, Polat YB, Donmez Z, Toprak H, Alkan A, et al. Contribution of Kaiser score in non-mass enhanced breast lesions. Eur J Radiol 2025; 185: 112002. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2025.112002.