OBJECTIVE: To assess if the application of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) obviates unnecessary MR-guided biopsies in suspicious breast lesions visible only on contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI). METHODS: This institutional review board (IRB)-approved, retrospective, single-centre study included 101 patients (mean age, 49.5; SD 13.9 years) who underwent additional DWI at 1.5 T prior to MRI-guided biopsy of 104 lesions classified as suspicious for malignancy and visible on CE-MRI only. An experienced radiologist, blinded to histopathologic and follow-up results, measured apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values obtained from DWI. Diagnostic accuracy was investigated using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: Histopathology revealed 20 malignant and 84 benign lesions. Lesions were masses in 61 (15 malignant, 24.6 %) and non-masses in 43 cases (five malignant, 11.6 %). Mean ADC values were 1.53 ± 0.38 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s in benign lesions and 1.06 ± 0.27 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s in malignant lesions. ROC analysis revealed exclusively benign lesions if ADC values were greater than 1.58 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s. As a consequence, 29 false-positive biopsies (34.5 %) could have been avoided without any false-negative findings. Both in mass and in non-mass lesions, rule-in and rule-out criteria were identified using flexible ADC thresholds based on ROC analysis. CONCLUSION: Additional application of DWI in breast lesions visible only on MRI can avoid false-positive, MR-guided biopsies. Thus, DWI should be an integral part of breast MRI protocols. KEY POINTS: DWI measurements are a fast and helpful technique for improved breast lesion diagnosis. DWI application in breast lesions visible only on MRI obviates false-positive, MR-guided biopsies. Flexible ADC thresholds provide rule-in and rule-out criteria for breast lesion malignancy.
OBJECTIVE: To assess if the application of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) obviates unnecessary MR-guided biopsies in suspicious breast lesions visible only on contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI). METHODS: This institutional review board (IRB)-approved, retrospective, single-centre study included 101 patients (mean age, 49.5; SD 13.9 years) who underwent additional DWI at 1.5 T prior to MRI-guided biopsy of 104 lesions classified as suspicious for malignancy and visible on CE-MRI only. An experienced radiologist, blinded to histopathologic and follow-up results, measured apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values obtained from DWI. Diagnostic accuracy was investigated using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: Histopathology revealed 20 malignant and 84 benign lesions. Lesions were masses in 61 (15 malignant, 24.6 %) and non-masses in 43 cases (five malignant, 11.6 %). Mean ADC values were 1.53 ± 0.38 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s in benign lesions and 1.06 ± 0.27 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s in malignant lesions. ROC analysis revealed exclusively benign lesions if ADC values were greater than 1.58 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s. As a consequence, 29 false-positive biopsies (34.5 %) could have been avoided without any false-negative findings. Both in mass and in non-mass lesions, rule-in and rule-out criteria were identified using flexible ADC thresholds based on ROC analysis. CONCLUSION: Additional application of DWI in breast lesions visible only on MRI can avoid false-positive, MR-guided biopsies. Thus, DWI should be an integral part of breast MRI protocols. KEY POINTS: DWI measurements are a fast and helpful technique for improved breast lesion diagnosis. DWI application in breast lesions visible only on MRI obviates false-positive, MR-guided biopsies. Flexible ADC thresholds provide rule-in and rule-out criteria for breast lesion malignancy.
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: Ellen Warner; Hans Messersmith; Petrina Causer; Andrea Eisen; Rene Shumak; Donald Plewes Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-05-06 Impact factor: 25.391
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: D Leithner; G J Wengert; T H Helbich; S Thakur; R E Ochoa-Albiztegui; E A Morris; K Pinker Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2017-12-09 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Hubert Bickel; Katja Pinker; Stephan Polanec; Heinrich Magometschnigg; Georg Wengert; Claudio Spick; Wolfgang Bogner; Zsuzsanna Bago-Horvath; Thomas H Helbich; Pascal Baltzer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Habib Rahbar; Zheng Zhang; Thomas L Chenevert; Justin Romanoff; Averi E Kitsch; Lucy G Hanna; Sara M Harvey; Linda Moy; Wendy B DeMartini; Basak Dogan; Wei T Yang; Lilian C Wang; Bonnie N Joe; Karen Y Oh; Colleen H Neal; Elizabeth S McDonald; Mitchell D Schnall; Constance D Lehman; Christopher E Comstock; Savannah C Partridge Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-01-15 Impact factor: 12.531