RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility of using diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) with an array spatial sensitivity encoding technique (ASSET) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) map values with different b values to distinguish benign and malignant breast lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-six female patients with 60 histologically proven breast lesions and 20 healthy volunteers underwent magnetic resonance imaging. A subset of normal volunteers (n = 7) and patients (n = 16) underwent both conventional DWI and ASSET-DWI, and the image quality between the two methods was compared. Finally, ASSET-DWI with b = 0, 600 s/mm(2), and b = 0, 1000 s/mm(2), were compared for their ability to distinguish benign and malignant breast lesions. RESULTS: The ASSET-DWI method had less distortion, fewer artifacts, and a lower acquisition time than other methods. No significant difference (P > .05) was detected in ADC map values between ASSET-DWI and conventional DWI. For ASSET-DWI, the sensitivity of ADC values for malignant lesions with a threshold of less than 1.44 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s (b = 600 s/mm(2)) and 1.18 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s (b = 1000 s/mm(2)) was 80% and 77.5%, respectively. The specificity of both groups was 95%. CONCLUSION: ASSET-DWI evaluation of breast tissue offers decreased distortion, susceptibility to artifacts, and acquisition time relative to other methods. The use of ASSET-DWI is feasible with b values ranging from 600 to 1000 s/mm(2) and provides increased specificity compared to other techniques. Thus, the ADC value of a breast lesion can be used to further characterize malignant lesions from benign ones. Copyright 2010 AUR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility of using diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) with an array spatial sensitivity encoding technique (ASSET) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) map values with different b values to distinguish benign and malignant breast lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-six female patients with 60 histologically proven breast lesions and 20 healthy volunteers underwent magnetic resonance imaging. A subset of normal volunteers (n = 7) and patients (n = 16) underwent both conventional DWI and ASSET-DWI, and the image quality between the two methods was compared. Finally, ASSET-DWI with b = 0, 600 s/mm(2), and b = 0, 1000 s/mm(2), were compared for their ability to distinguish benign and malignant breast lesions. RESULTS: The ASSET-DWI method had less distortion, fewer artifacts, and a lower acquisition time than other methods. No significant difference (P > .05) was detected in ADC map values between ASSET-DWI and conventional DWI. For ASSET-DWI, the sensitivity of ADC values for malignant lesions with a threshold of less than 1.44 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s (b = 600 s/mm(2)) and 1.18 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s (b = 1000 s/mm(2)) was 80% and 77.5%, respectively. The specificity of both groups was 95%. CONCLUSION: ASSET-DWI evaluation of breast tissue offers decreased distortion, susceptibility to artifacts, and acquisition time relative to other methods. The use of ASSET-DWI is feasible with b values ranging from 600 to 1000 s/mm(2) and provides increased specificity compared to other techniques. Thus, the ADC value of a breast lesion can be used to further characterize malignant lesions from benign ones. Copyright 2010 AUR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: J A Brunberg; T L Chenevert; P E McKeever; D A Ross; L R Junck; K M Muraszko; R Dauser; J G Pipe; A T Betley Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 1995-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: P Mürtz; M Tsesarskiy; A Kowal; F Träber; J Gieseke; W A Willinek; C C Leutner; A Schmiedel; H H Schild Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-06-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Michael A Jacobs; Vered Stearns; Antonio C Wolff; Katarzyna Macura; Pedram Argani; Nagi Khouri; Theodore Tsangaris; Peter B Barker; Nancy E Davidson; Zaver M Bhujwalla; David A Bluemke; Ronald Ouwerkerk Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2010-09-21 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Sana Parsian; Habib Rahbar; Kimberly H Allison; Wendy B Demartini; Matthew L Olson; Constance D Lehman; Savannah C Partridge Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-10-02 Impact factor: 11.105