Literature DB >> 24834475

Diffusion-weighted imaging: determination of the best pair of b-values to discriminate breast lesions.

L Nogueira1, S Brandão, E Matos, R G Nunes, J Loureiro, H A Ferreira, I Ramos.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In breast diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) is used to discriminate between malignant and benign lesions. As ADC estimates can be affected by the weighting factors, our goal was to determine the optimal pair of b-values for discriminating breast lesions at 3.0 T.
METHODS: 152 females with 157 lesions (89 malignant and 68 benign) underwent breast MRI, including a DWI sequence sampling six b-values 50, 200, 400, 600, 800 and 1000 s mm(-2). ADC values were computed from different pairs of b-values and compared with ADC obtained by fitting the six b-values using a mono-exponential diffusion model (ADCall). Cut-off ADC values were determined and diagnostic performance evaluated by receiver operating characteristic analysis using Youden statistics. Mean ADCs were determined for normal tissue and lesions. Differences were evaluated by lesion and histological types.
RESULTS: Considering the cut-off values 1.46 and 1.49 × 10(3)mm(2) s(-1), the pairs 50, 1000 and 200, 800 s mm(-2) showed the highest accuracy, 77.5% and 75.4% with areas under the curve 84.4% and 84.2%, respectively. The best pair for ADC quantification was 50, 1000 s mm(-2) with 38/49 true-negative and 69/89 true-positive cases respectively; mean ADCs were 1.86 ± 0.46, 1.77 ± 0.37 and 1.15 ± 0.46 × 10(-3) mm(2) s(-1) for normal, benign and malignant lesions. There were no significant differences in these ADC values when compared with ADCall (ADC calculated from the full set of b - values) [difference = 0.0075 × 10(-3) mm(2) s(-1); confidence interval 95%: (-0.0036; 0.0186); p = 0.18].
CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performance in differentiating malignant and benign lesions was most accurate for the b-value pair 50, 1000 s mm(-2). ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: The best b-value pair for lesion discrimination and characterization through ADC quantification was 50, 1000 s mm(-2).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24834475      PMCID: PMC4075582          DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20130807

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  41 in total

1.  Comparisons of multi b-value DWI signal analysis with pathological specimen of breast cancer.

Authors:  Takayuki Tamura; Shuji Usui; Shigeru Murakami; Koji Arihiro; Takashi Fujimoto; Tamaki Yamada; Kumiko Naito; Mitoshi Akiyama
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2011-12-08       Impact factor: 4.668

2.  Sensitivity of MRI versus mammography for detecting foci of multifocal, multicentric breast cancer in Fatty and dense breasts using the whole-breast pathologic examination as a gold standard.

Authors:  Francesco Sardanelli; Gian M Giuseppetti; Pietro Panizza; Massimo Bazzocchi; Alfonso Fausto; Giovanni Simonetti; Vincenzo Lattanzio; Alessandro Del Maschio
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Contribution of diffusion-weighted imaging to dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in the characterization of breast tumors.

Authors:  Sibel Kul; Aysegul Cansu; Etem Alhan; Hasan Dinc; Gurbuz Gunes; Abdulkadir Reis
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Quantitative diffusion imaging in breast cancer: a clinical prospective study.

Authors:  Erika Rubesova; Anne-Sophie Grell; Viviane De Maertelaer; Thierry Metens; Shih-Li Chao; Marc Lemort
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 4.813

5.  Quantification of water compartmentation in cell suspensions by diffusion-weighted and T(2)-weighted MRI.

Authors:  Yiftach Roth; Aharon Ocherashvilli; Dianne Daniels; Jesus Ruiz-Cabello; Stephan E Maier; Arie Orenstein; Yael Mardor
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2007-06-18       Impact factor: 2.546

6.  Diffusion-weighted MR for differentiation of breast lesions at 3.0 T: how does selection of diffusion protocols affect diagnosis?

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

7.  1H MR spectroscopy and diffusion-weighted imaging of the breast: are they useful tools for characterizing breast lesions before biopsy?

Authors:  Mitsuhiro Tozaki; Eisuke Fukuma
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging as an adjunct to conventional breast MRI for improved positive predictive value.

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

9.  Separation of diffusion and perfusion in intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging.

Authors:  D Le Bihan; E Breton; D Lallemand; M L Aubin; J Vignaud; M Laval-Jeantet
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1988-08       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Diffusional kurtosis imaging: the quantification of non-gaussian water diffusion by means of magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Jens H Jensen; Joseph A Helpern; Anita Ramani; Hanzhang Lu; Kyle Kaczynski
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 4.668

View more
  5 in total

1.  Contribution of IVIM to Conventional Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced and Diffusion-Weighted MRI in Differentiating Benign from Malignant Breast Masses.

Authors:  Qingjun Wang; Yong Guo; Jing Zhang; Zijun Wang; Minhua Huang; Yun Zhang
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2016-08-19       Impact factor: 2.860

2.  Quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient measurement obtained by 3.0Tesla MRI as a potential noninvasive marker of tumor aggressiveness in breast cancer.

Authors:  Manuela Durando; Lucas Gennaro; Gene Y Cho; Dilip D Giri; Merlin M Gnanasigamani; Sujata Patil; Elizabeth J Sutton; Joseph O Deasy; Elizabeth A Morris; Sunitha B Thakur
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2016-06-28       Impact factor: 3.528

3.  Can apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) distinguish breast cancer from benign breast findings? A meta-analysis based on 13 847 lesions.

Authors:  Alexey Surov; Hans Jonas Meyer; Andreas Wienke
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2019-10-15       Impact factor: 4.430

4.  Apparent diffusion coefficient values in borderline breast lesions upgraded and not upgraded at definitive histopathological examination after surgical excision.

Authors:  Corrado Tagliati; Paola Piccinni; Paola Ercolani; Elisabetta Marconi; Barbara Franca Simonetti; Gian Marco Giuseppetti; Andrea Giovagnoni
Journal:  Pol J Radiol       Date:  2021-04-30

5.  Two Different Methods of Region-of-Interest Placement for Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions by Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Value

Authors:  Masoumeh Gity; Behnaz Moradi; Rasool Arami; Ali Arabkheradmand; Mohamad Ali Kazemi
Journal:  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev       Date:  2018-10-26
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.