PURPOSE: To determine whether readout-segmented echo-planar diffusion imaging (RESOLVE) improves separation of malignant versus benign lesions compared to standard single-shot echo-planar imaging (ss-EPI) on BI-RADS 4/5 lesions detected on breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive 3T breast MRI studies with BI-RADS 4/5 designation and subsequent biopsy or benign mastectomy were retrospectively identified. Freehand regions of interest (ROIs) were drawn on lesions and also on normal background fibroglandular tissue for comparison. Lesion-to-background contrast was evaluated by normalizing signal intensity of the lesion ROI by the normal background tissue ROI at b = 800. Statistical analysis used the Mann-Whitney/Wilcoxon rank-sum test for unpaired and Wilcoxon signed-rank for paired comparisons. RESULTS: Of 38 lesions in 32 patients, 10 were malignant. Lesion-to-background contrast was higher on RESOLVE than ss-EPI (1.80 ± 0.71 vs. 1.62 ± 0.63, P = 0.03). Mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) was the same or lower on RESOLVE than ss-EPI, and this effect was largest in malignant lesions (RESOLVE 0.90 ± 0.13; ss-EPI 1.00 ± 0.13; median difference -0.10 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.17, -0.02) × 10(-3) mm(2) /sec; P = 0.014). By either diffusion method, there was a statistically significant difference between benign and malignant mean ADC (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Increased lesion-to-background contrast and improved separation of benign from malignant lesions by RESOLVE compared to standard diffusion suggests that RESOLVE may show promise as an adjunct to clinical breast MRI.
PURPOSE: To determine whether readout-segmented echo-planar diffusion imaging (RESOLVE) improves separation of malignant versus benign lesions compared to standard single-shot echo-planar imaging (ss-EPI) on BI-RADS 4/5 lesions detected on breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive 3T breast MRI studies with BI-RADS 4/5 designation and subsequent biopsy or benign mastectomy were retrospectively identified. Freehand regions of interest (ROIs) were drawn on lesions and also on normal background fibroglandular tissue for comparison. Lesion-to-background contrast was evaluated by normalizing signal intensity of the lesion ROI by the normal background tissue ROI at b = 800. Statistical analysis used the Mann-Whitney/Wilcoxon rank-sum test for unpaired and Wilcoxon signed-rank for paired comparisons. RESULTS: Of 38 lesions in 32 patients, 10 were malignant. Lesion-to-background contrast was higher on RESOLVE than ss-EPI (1.80 ± 0.71 vs. 1.62 ± 0.63, P = 0.03). Mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) was the same or lower on RESOLVE than ss-EPI, and this effect was largest in malignant lesions (RESOLVE 0.90 ± 0.13; ss-EPI 1.00 ± 0.13; median difference -0.10 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.17, -0.02) × 10(-3) mm(2) /sec; P = 0.014). By either diffusion method, there was a statistically significant difference between benign and malignant mean ADC (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Increased lesion-to-background contrast and improved separation of benign from malignant lesions by RESOLVE compared to standard diffusion suggests that RESOLVE may show promise as an adjunct to clinical breast MRI.
Authors: Nicky H G M Peters; Koen L Vincken; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Peter R Luijten; Willem P Th M Mali; Lambertus W Bartels Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Savannah C Partridge; Wendy B DeMartini; Brenda F Kurland; Peter R Eby; Steven W White; Constance D Lehman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Wolfgang Bogner; Katja Pinker-Domenig; Hubert Bickel; Marek Chmelik; Michael Weber; Thomas H Helbich; Siegfried Trattnig; Stephan Gruber Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Riham H Ei Khouli; Michael A Jacobs; Sarah D Mezban; Peng Huang; Ihab R Kamel; Katarzyna J Macura; David A Bluemke Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Lidia Rosi Medeiros; Célia Scapin Duarte; Daniela Dornelles Rosa; Maria Isabel Edelweiss; Marcia Edelweiss; Fábio Rosa Silva; Erik Paul Winnnikow; Patrícia Duarte Simões Pires; Maria Inês Rosa Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-01-08 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: S Gruber; L Minarikova; K Pinker; O Zaric; M Chmelik; B Strasser; P Baltzer; T Helbich; S Trattnig; W Bogner Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-08-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Nita Amornsiripanitch; Vicky T Nguyen; Habib Rahbar; Daniel S Hippe; Vijayakrishna K Gadi; Mara H Rendi; Savannah C Partridge Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-11-27 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Isaac Daimiel Naranjo; Roberto Lo Gullo; Elizabeth A Morris; Toni Larowin; Maggie M Fung; Arnaud Guidon; Katja Pinker; Sunitha B Thakur Journal: Radiol Imaging Cancer Date: 2020-05-29
Authors: Habib Rahbar; Sana Parsian; Diana L Lam; Brian N Dontchos; Nicole K Andeen; Mara H Rendi; Constance D Lehman; Savannah C Partridge Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2015-07-26 Impact factor: 1.605
Authors: Jessica A McKay; An L Church; Nathan Rubin; Tim H Emory; Noelle F Hoven; Jessica E Kuehn-Hajder; Michael T Nelson; Sudhir Ramanna; Edward J Auerbach; Steen Moeller; Patrick J Bolan Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-08-25 Impact factor: 11.105