Marco Moschetta1, Michele Telegrafo2, Leonarda Rella3, Amato Antonio Stabile Ianora4, Giuseppe Angelelli5. 1. Interdisciplinary Department of Medicine, Section of Diagnostic Imaging, Aldo Moro University of Bari Medical School, Piazza Giulio Cesare 11, 70124 Bari, Italy. Electronic address: marco.moschetta@gmail.com. 2. Interdisciplinary Department of Medicine, Section of Diagnostic Imaging, Aldo Moro University of Bari Medical School, Piazza Giulio Cesare 11, 70124 Bari, Italy. Electronic address: mikitele@hotmail.it. 3. Interdisciplinary Department of Medicine, Section of Diagnostic Imaging, Aldo Moro University of Bari Medical School, Piazza Giulio Cesare 11, 70124 Bari, Italy. Electronic address: lea.rella@gmail.com. 4. Interdisciplinary Department of Medicine, Section of Diagnostic Imaging, Aldo Moro University of Bari Medical School, Piazza Giulio Cesare 11, 70124 Bari, Italy. Electronic address: a.stabile@radiologia.uniba.it. 5. Interdisciplinary Department of Medicine, Section of Diagnostic Imaging, Aldo Moro University of Bari Medical School, Piazza Giulio Cesare 11, 70124 Bari, Italy. Electronic address: g.angellelli@radiologia.uniba.it.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Diffusion-weighted imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS) provides both qualitative and quantitative imaging of breast lesions and are usually performed before contrast material injection (CMI). This study aims to assess whether the administration of gadolinium significantly affects DWIBS imaging. METHODS: 200 patients were prospectively evaluated by MRI with STIR, TSE-T2, pre-CMI DWIBS, contrast enhanced THRIVE-T1 and post-CMI DWIBS sequences. Pre and post-CMI DWIBS were analyzed searching for the presence of breast lesions and calculating the ADC value. ADC values of ≤1.44×10(-3) mm(2)/s were considered suspicious for malignancy. This analysis was then compared with the histological findings. Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy (DA), positive predictive value (PPV) and negative (NPV) were calculated for both sequences and represented by ROC analysis. Pre and post-CMI ADC values were compared by using the paired t test. RESULTS: In 150/200 (59%) patients, pre and post-CMI DWIBS indicated the presence of breast lesions, 53 (35%) with ADC values of >1.44×10(-3) mm(2)/s and 97 (65%) with ADC≤1.44×10(-3) mm(2)/s. Pre-CMI and post-DWIBS sequences obtained the same sensitivity, specificity, DA, PPV and NPV values of 97%, 83%, 89%, 79% and 98%. The mean ADC value of benign lesions was 1.831±0.18×10(-3) mm(2)/s before and 1.828±0.18×10(-3) mm(2)/s after CMI. The mean ADC value of the malignant lesions was 1.146±0.16×10(-3) mm(2)/s before and 1.144±0.16×10(-3) mm(2)/s after CMI. No significant difference was found between pre and post CMI ADC values (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: DWIBS imaging is not influenced by CMI. Breast MR protocol could be modified by placing DWIBS after dynamic contrast enhanced sequences in order to maximize patient cooperation.
OBJECTIVES: Diffusion-weighted imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS) provides both qualitative and quantitative imaging of breast lesions and are usually performed before contrast material injection (CMI). This study aims to assess whether the administration of gadolinium significantly affects DWIBS imaging. METHODS: 200 patients were prospectively evaluated by MRI with STIR, TSE-T2, pre-CMI DWIBS, contrast enhanced THRIVE-T1 and post-CMI DWIBS sequences. Pre and post-CMI DWIBS were analyzed searching for the presence of breast lesions and calculating the ADC value. ADC values of ≤1.44×10(-3) mm(2)/s were considered suspicious for malignancy. This analysis was then compared with the histological findings. Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy (DA), positive predictive value (PPV) and negative (NPV) were calculated for both sequences and represented by ROC analysis. Pre and post-CMI ADC values were compared by using the paired t test. RESULTS: In 150/200 (59%) patients, pre and post-CMI DWIBS indicated the presence of breast lesions, 53 (35%) with ADC values of >1.44×10(-3) mm(2)/s and 97 (65%) with ADC≤1.44×10(-3) mm(2)/s. Pre-CMI and post-DWIBS sequences obtained the same sensitivity, specificity, DA, PPV and NPV values of 97%, 83%, 89%, 79% and 98%. The mean ADC value of benign lesions was 1.831±0.18×10(-3) mm(2)/s before and 1.828±0.18×10(-3) mm(2)/s after CMI. The mean ADC value of the malignant lesions was 1.146±0.16×10(-3) mm(2)/s before and 1.144±0.16×10(-3) mm(2)/s after CMI. No significant difference was found between pre and post CMI ADC values (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: DWIBS imaging is not influenced by CMI. Breast MR protocol could be modified by placing DWIBS after dynamic contrast enhanced sequences in order to maximize patient cooperation.
Authors: L Losurdo; T M A Basile; A Fanizzi; R Bellotti; U Bottigli; R Carbonara; R Dentamaro; D Diacono; V Didonna; A Lombardi; F Giotta; C Guaragnella; A Mangia; R Massafra; P Tamborra; S Tangaro; D La Forgia Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 3.411