Literature DB >> 25698095

Region of interest demarcation for quantification of the apparent diffusion coefficient in breast lesions and its interobserver variability.

Luísa Nogueira1, Sofia Brandão, Eduarda Matos, Rita Gouveia Nunes, Hugo Alexandre Ferreira, Joana Loureiro, Isabel Ramos.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We aimed to compare two different methods of region of interest (ROI) demarcation and determine interobserver variability on apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in breast lesions.
METHODS: Thirty-two patients with 39 lesions were evaluated with a 3.0 Tesla scanner using a diffusion-weighted sequence with several b-values. Two observers independently performed the ADC measurements using: 1) a small fixed area of 10 mm2 ROI within the area with highest restriction; 2) a large ROI so as to include the whole lesion. Differences were assessed using the Wilcoxon-rank test. Bland-Altman method and Spearman coefficient were applied for interobserver variability and correlation analysis.
RESULTS: ADC values measured using the two ROI demarcation methods were significantly different for both observers (P = 0.026; P = 0.033). There was no interobserver variability in ADC values using either method (large ROI, P = 0.21; small ROI, P = 0.64). ADC values of malignant lesions were significantly different between the two methods (P < 0.001). Variability in ADC was ≤0.008×10-3 mm2/s for both methods. When using the same method, ADC values were significantly correlated between the observers (small ROI: r=0.990, P < 0.001; large ROI: r=0.985, P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The choice of ROI demarcation method influences ADC measurements. Small ROIs show less overlap in ADC values and higher ADC reproducibility, suggesting that this method may improve lesion discrimination. Interobserver variability was low for both methods.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25698095      PMCID: PMC4463310          DOI: 10.5152/dir.2014.14217

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol        ISSN: 1305-3825            Impact factor:   2.630


  8 in total

1.  Diffusion-weighted imaging of breast masses: comparison of diagnostic performance using various apparent diffusion coefficient parameters.

Authors:  Maki Hirano; Hiroko Satake; Satoko Ishigaki; Mitsuru Ikeda; Hisashi Kawai; Shinji Naganawa
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 2.  Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging of the breast.

Authors:  Fernanda Philadelpho Arantes Pereira; Gabriela Martins; Raquel de Vasconcellos Carvalhaes de Oliveira
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 2.266

3.  Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in MR mammography (MRM): clinical comparison of echo planar imaging (EPI) and half-Fourier single-shot turbo spin echo (HASTE) diffusion techniques.

Authors:  P A T Baltzer; D M Renz; K-H Herrmann; M Dietzel; I Krumbein; M Gajda; O Camara; J R Reichenbach; W A Kaiser
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-03-14       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Application of the diffusion kurtosis model for the study of breast lesions.

Authors:  Luísa Nogueira; Sofia Brandão; Eduarda Matos; Rita Gouveia Nunes; Joana Loureiro; Isabel Ramos; Hugo Alexandre Ferreira
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-03-22       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Diffusion-weighted imaging improves the diagnostic accuracy of conventional 3.0-T breast MR imaging.

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

6.  Intraobserver and interobserver variability in the calculation of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) from diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) of breast tumours.

Authors:  G Petralia; L Bonello; P Summers; L Preda; A Malasevschi; S Raimondi; R Di Filippi; M Locatelli; G Curigliano; G Renne; M Bellomi
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2011-01-12       Impact factor: 3.469

7.  Comparison of 3.0-and 1.5-tesla diffusion-weighted imaging in the visibility of breast cancer.

Authors:  Aoi Matsuoka; Masako Minato; Masafumi Harada; Hitoshi Kubo; Yoshikatsu Bandou; Akira Tangoku; Kiichirou Nakano; Hiromu Nishitani
Journal:  Radiat Med       Date:  2008-01-31

8.  Apparent diffusion coefficient measurements in the differentiation between benign and malignant lesions: a systematic review.

Authors:  M A Vermoolen; T C Kwee; R A J Nievelstein
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2012-06-07
  8 in total
  14 in total

1.  Noise properties of proton density fat fraction estimated using chemical shift-encoded MRI.

Authors:  Nathan T Roberts; Diego Hernando; James H Holmes; Curtis N Wiens; Scott B Reeder
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2018-01-10       Impact factor: 4.668

2.  Diffusion-weighted MRI findings and clinical correlations in sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.

Authors:  Ting Gao; Jin-Hao Lyu; Jia-Tang Zhang; Xin Lou; Wei Zhao; Xiao-Wei Xing; Ming Yang; Yan Yao; Qing-Che Tan; Cheng-Lin Tian; Xu-Sheng Huang; Lin Ma; Sheng-Yuan Yu
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  2015-04-11       Impact factor: 4.849

3.  Diffusion-weighted MRI for Unenhanced Breast Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Nita Amornsiripanitch; Sebastian Bickelhaupt; Hee Jung Shin; Madeline Dang; Habib Rahbar; Katja Pinker; Savannah C Partridge
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-10-08       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Comparison of region-of-interest delineation methods for diffusion tensor imaging in patients with cervical spondylotic radiculopathy.

Authors:  Penghuan Wu; Chengyan Huang; Benchao Shi; Anmin Jin
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-07-15       Impact factor: 2.562

5.  Diffusion-weighted imaging of breast lesions: Region-of-interest placement and different ADC parameters influence apparent diffusion coefficient values.

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

6.  Role of diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging in a rat model of testicular torsion.

Authors:  Furkan Ufuk; Duygu Herek; Özkan Herek; Metin Akbulut
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-10-19       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Effect of noise and estimator type on bias for analysis of liver proton density fat fraction.

Authors:  Edward M Lawrence; Nathan T Roberts; Diego Hernando; Lu Mao; Scott B Reeder
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2020-10-02       Impact factor: 2.546

8.  Intravoxel Incoherent Motion Diffusion for Identification of Breast Malignant and Benign Tumors Using Chemometrics.

Authors:  Fengnong Chen; Pulan Chen; Hamed Hamid Muhammed; Juan Zhang
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2017-05-29       Impact factor: 3.411

9.  Correlation between apparent diffusion coefficient values in breast magnetic resonance imaging and prognostic factors of breast invasive ductal carcinoma.

Authors:  Ricardo Moutinho-Guilherme; Janeth Hercilia Oyola; David Sanz-Rosa; Israel Thuissard Vassallo; Raquel Murillo García; Joana Martins Pisco; Vicente Martínez de Vega
Journal:  Porto Biomed J       Date:  2018-08-03

10.  Semi-automatic segmentation from intrinsically-registered 18F-FDG-PET/MRI for treatment response assessment in a breast cancer cohort: comparison to manual DCE-MRI.

Authors:  Maren Marie Sjaastad Andreassen; Pål Erik Goa; Torill Eidhammer Sjøbakk; Roja Hedayati; Hans Petter Eikesdal; Callie Deng; Agnes Østlie; Steinar Lundgren; Tone Frost Bathen; Neil Peter Jerome
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2019-09-27       Impact factor: 2.310

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.