OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of the choice of b values and prior use of contrast medium on apparent diffusion coefficients (ADCs) of breast lesions derived from diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and on the discrimination between benign and malignant lesions. METHODS: A literature search of relevant DWI studies was performed. The accuracy of DWI to characterize lesions by using b value ≤600 s/mm(2) and b value >600 s/mm(2) was presented as pooled sensitivity and specificity, and the ADC was calculated for both groups. Lesions were pooled as pre- or post-contrast DWI. RESULTS: Of 198 articles, 26 met the inclusion criteria. Median ADCs were significantly higher (13.2-35.1 %, p < 0.001) for the group of b values ≤600 s/mm(2) compared to >600 s/mm(2). The sensitivity in both groups was similar (91 % and 89 %, p = 0.495) as well as the specificity (75 % and 84 %, p = 0.237). Contrast medium had no significant effects on the ADCs (p ≥ 0.08). The differentiation between benign and malignant lesions was optimal (58.4 %) for the combination of b = 0 and 1,000 s/mm(2). CONCLUSIONS: The wide variety of b value combinations applied in different studies significantly affects the ADC of breast lesions and confounds quantitative DWI. If only a couple of b values are used, those of b = 0 and 1,000 s/mm(2) are recommended for the best improvement of differentiating between benign and malignant lesions. KEY POINTS: • The choice of b values significantly affects the ADC of breast lesions. • Sensitivity and specificity are not affected by the choice of b values. • b values 0 and 1,000 s/mm (2) are recommended for optimal differentiation between benign and malignant lesions. • Contrast medium prior to DWI does not significantly affect the ADC.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of the choice of b values and prior use of contrast medium on apparent diffusion coefficients (ADCs) of breast lesions derived from diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and on the discrimination between benign and malignant lesions. METHODS: A literature search of relevant DWI studies was performed. The accuracy of DWI to characterize lesions by using b value ≤600 s/mm(2) and b value >600 s/mm(2) was presented as pooled sensitivity and specificity, and the ADC was calculated for both groups. Lesions were pooled as pre- or post-contrast DWI. RESULTS: Of 198 articles, 26 met the inclusion criteria. Median ADCs were significantly higher (13.2-35.1 %, p < 0.001) for the group of b values ≤600 s/mm(2) compared to >600 s/mm(2). The sensitivity in both groups was similar (91 % and 89 %, p = 0.495) as well as the specificity (75 % and 84 %, p = 0.237). Contrast medium had no significant effects on the ADCs (p ≥ 0.08). The differentiation between benign and malignant lesions was optimal (58.4 %) for the combination of b = 0 and 1,000 s/mm(2). CONCLUSIONS: The wide variety of b value combinations applied in different studies significantly affects the ADC of breast lesions and confounds quantitative DWI. If only a couple of b values are used, those of b = 0 and 1,000 s/mm(2) are recommended for the best improvement of differentiating between benign and malignant lesions. KEY POINTS: • The choice of b values significantly affects the ADC of breast lesions. • Sensitivity and specificity are not affected by the choice of b values. • b values 0 and 1,000 s/mm (2) are recommended for optimal differentiation between benign and malignant lesions. • Contrast medium prior to DWI does not significantly affect the ADC.
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: Pascal A T Baltzer; Matthias Benndorf; Matthias Dietzel; Mieczyslaw Gajda; Oumar Camara; Werner A Kaiser Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-11-20 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Katja Pinker; Linda Moy; Elizabeth J Sutton; Ritse M Mann; Michael Weber; Sunitha B Thakur; Maxine S Jochelson; Zsuzsanna Bago-Horvath; Elizabeth A Morris; Pascal At Baltzer; Thomas H Helbich Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Monique D Dorrius; Erik F J de Vries; Riemer H J A Slart; Andor W J M Glaudemans Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-03-12 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: K Deike-Hofmann; T Kuder; F König; D Paech; C Dreher; S Delorme; H-P Schlemmer; S Bickelhaupt Journal: Radiologe Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 0.635
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