OBJECTIVES: To establish the reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements in normal fibroglandular breast tissue and to assess variation in ADC values with phase of the menstrual cycle and menopausal status. METHODS: Thirty-one volunteers (13 premenopausal, 18 postmenopausal) underwent magnetic resonance twice (interval 11-22 days) using diffusion-weighted MRI. ADC(total) and a perfusion-insensitive ADC(high) (omitting b = 0) were calculated. Reproducibility and inter-observer variability of mean ADC values were assessed. The difference in mean ADC values between the two phases of the menstrual cycle and the postmenopausal breast were evaluated. RESULTS: ADC(total) and ADC(high) showed good reproducibility (r% = 17.6, 22.4). ADC(high) showed very good inter-observer agreement (kappa = 0.83). The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were 0.93 and 0.91. Mean ADC values were significantly lower in the postmenopausal breast (ADC(total) 1.46 ± 0.3 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s, ADC(high) 1.33 ± 0.3 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s) compared with the premenopausal breast (ADC(total) 1.84 ± 0.26 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s, ADC(high) 1.77 ± 0.26 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s; both P < 0.001). No significant difference was seen in ADC values in relation to menstrual cycle (ADC(total) P = 0.2, ADC(high) P = 0.24) or between postmenopausal women taking or not taking oestrogen supplements (ADC(total) P = 0.6, ADC(high) P = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS: ADC values in fibroglandular breast tissue are reproducible. Lower ADC values within the postmenopausal breast may reduce diffusion-weighted contrast and have implications for accurately detecting tumours. KEY POINTS: • ADC values from fibroglandular breast tissue are measured reproducibly by multiple observers. • Mean ADC values were significantly lower in postmenopausal than premenopausal breast tissue. • Mean ADC values did not vary significantly with menstrual cycle. • Low postmenopausal ADC values may hinder tumour detection on DW-MRI.
OBJECTIVES: To establish the reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements in normal fibroglandular breast tissue and to assess variation in ADC values with phase of the menstrual cycle and menopausal status. METHODS: Thirty-one volunteers (13 premenopausal, 18 postmenopausal) underwent magnetic resonance twice (interval 11-22 days) using diffusion-weighted MRI. ADC(total) and a perfusion-insensitive ADC(high) (omitting b = 0) were calculated. Reproducibility and inter-observer variability of mean ADC values were assessed. The difference in mean ADC values between the two phases of the menstrual cycle and the postmenopausal breast were evaluated. RESULTS: ADC(total) and ADC(high) showed good reproducibility (r% = 17.6, 22.4). ADC(high) showed very good inter-observer agreement (kappa = 0.83). The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were 0.93 and 0.91. Mean ADC values were significantly lower in the postmenopausal breast (ADC(total) 1.46 ± 0.3 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s, ADC(high) 1.33 ± 0.3 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s) compared with the premenopausal breast (ADC(total) 1.84 ± 0.26 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s, ADC(high) 1.77 ± 0.26 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s; both P < 0.001). No significant difference was seen in ADC values in relation to menstrual cycle (ADC(total) P = 0.2, ADC(high) P = 0.24) or between postmenopausal women taking or not taking oestrogen supplements (ADC(total) P = 0.6, ADC(high) P = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS: ADC values in fibroglandular breast tissue are reproducible. Lower ADC values within the postmenopausal breast may reduce diffusion-weighted contrast and have implications for accurately detecting tumours. KEY POINTS: • ADC values from fibroglandular breast tissue are measured reproducibly by multiple observers. • Mean ADC values were significantly lower in postmenopausal than premenopausal breast tissue. • Mean ADC values did not vary significantly with menstrual cycle. • Low postmenopausal ADC values may hinder tumour detection on DW-MRI.
Authors: Nicky H G M Peters; Inne H M Borel Rinkes; Nicolaas P A Zuithoff; Willem P T M Mali; Karel G M Moons; Petra H M Peeters Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-11-16 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Wolfgang Bogner; Stephan Gruber; Katja Pinker; Günther Grabner; Andreas Stadlbauer; Michael Weber; Ewald Moser; Thomas H Helbich; Siegfried Trattnig Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-07-31 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jean-Paul Delille; Priscilla J Slanetz; Eren D Yeh; Daniel B Kopans; Leoncio Garrido Journal: Breast J Date: 2005 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Elizabeth S McDonald; Jennifer G Schopp; Sue Peacock; Wendy B DeMartini; Wendy D DeMartini; Habib Rahbar; Constance D Lehman; Savannah C Partridge Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: He Zhu; Lori R Arlinghaus; Jennifer G Whisenant; Ming Li; John C Gore; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2014-07-01 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Jennifer G Whisenant; Gregory D Ayers; Mary E Loveless; Stephanie L Barnes; Daniel C Colvin; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-12-14 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: David C Newitt; Zheng Zhang; Jessica E Gibbs; Savannah C Partridge; Thomas L Chenevert; Mark A Rosen; Patrick J Bolan; Helga S Marques; Sheye Aliu; Wen Li; Lisa Cimino; Bonnie N Joe; Heidi Umphrey; Haydee Ojeda-Fournier; Basak Dogan; Karen Oh; Hiroyuki Abe; Jennifer Drukteinis; Laura J Esserman; Nola M Hylton Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 4.813