Literature DB >> 26443604

Is there a systematic bias of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements of the breast if measured on different workstations? An inter- and intra-reader agreement study.

Paola Clauser1,2, Magda Marcon2,3, Marta Maieron4, Chiara Zuiani2, Massimo Bazzocchi2, Pascal A T Baltzer5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the influence of post-processing systems, intra- and inter-reader agreement on the variability of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements in breast lesions.
METHODS: Forty-one patients with 41 biopsy-proven breast lesions gave their informed consent and were included in this prospective IRB-approved study. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations were performed at 1.5 T using an EPI-DWI sequence, with b-values of 0 and 1000 s/mm(2). Two radiologists (R1, R2) reviewed the images in separate sessions and measured the ADC for lesion, using MRI-workstation (S-WS), PACS-workstation (P-WS) and a commercial DICOM viewer (O-SW). Agreement was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland-Altman plots and coefficient of variation (CV).
RESULTS: Thirty-one malignant, two high-risk and eight benign mass-like lesions were analysed. Intra-reader agreement was almost perfect (ICC-R1 = 0.974; ICC-R2 = 0.990) while inter-reader agreement was substantial (ICC from 0.615 to 0.682). Bland-Altman plots revealed a significant bias in ADC values measured between O-SW and S-WS (P = 0.025), no further systematic differences were identified. CV varied from 6.8 % to 7.9 %.
CONCLUSION: Post-processing systems may have a significant, although minor, impact on ADC measurements in breast lesions. While intra-reader agreement is high, the main source of ADC variability seems to be caused by inter-reader variation. KEY POINTS: • ADC provides quantitative information on breast lesions independent from the system used. • ADC measurement using different workstations and software systems is generally reliable. • Systematic, but minor, differences may occur between different post-processing systems. • Inter-reader agreement of ADC measurements exceeded intra-reader agreement.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Apparent Diffusion Coefficient; Breast; Diffusion-weighted Imaging; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Observer Variation

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26443604     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-015-4051-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  18 in total

Review 1.  Can diffusion-weighted MR imaging and contrast-enhanced MR imaging precisely evaluate and predict pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer?

Authors:  Lian-Ming Wu; Jia-Ni Hu; Hai-Yan Gu; Jia Hua; Jie Chen; Jian-Rong Xu
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2012-04-04       Impact factor: 4.872

2.  Apparent diffusion coefficient reproducibility of the pancreas measured at different MR scanners using diffusion-weighted imaging.

Authors:  Xiao-Hua Ye; Jia-Yin Gao; Zheng-Han Yang; Yuan Liu
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2013-11-12       Impact factor: 4.813

3.  Sensitivity and specificity of unenhanced MR mammography (DWI combined with T2-weighted TSE imaging, ueMRM) for the differentiation of mass lesions.

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

4.  Diffusion-weighted imaging of the breast: principles and clinical applications.

Authors:  Reiko Woodhams; Saadallah Ramadan; Peter Stanwell; Satoko Sakamoto; Hirofumi Hata; Masanori Ozaki; Shinichi Kan; Yusuke Inoue
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2011 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.333

5.  Apparent diffusion coefficient values for discriminating benign and malignant breast MRI lesions: effects of lesion type and size.

Authors:  Savannah C Partridge; Christiane D Mullins; Brenda F Kurland; Michael D Allain; Wendy B DeMartini; Peter R Eby; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 6.  Effect of b value and pre-admission of contrast on diagnostic accuracy of 1.5-T breast DWI: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Monique D Dorrius; Hildebrand Dijkstra; Matthijs Oudkerk; Paul E Sijens
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-08-09       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Assessment and quantification of sources of variability in breast apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements at diffusion weighted imaging.

Authors:  E Giannotti; S Waugh; L Priba; Z Davis; E Crowe; S Vinnicombe
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2015-06-01       Impact factor: 3.528

8.  MR mammography using diffusion-weighted imaging in evaluating breast cancer: a correlation with proliferation index.

Authors:  Cristina Molinari; Paola Clauser; Rossano Girometti; Anna Linda; Elisa Cimino; Fabio Puglisi; Chiara Zuiani; Massimo Bazzocchi
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2015-03-17       Impact factor: 3.469

Review 9.  Diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: protocol optimization, interpretation, and clinical applications.

Authors:  Savannah C Partridge; Elizabeth S McDonald
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am       Date:  2013-06-10       Impact factor: 2.266

10.  Tumour ADC measurements in rectal cancer: effect of ROI methods on ADC values and interobserver variability.

Authors:  Doenja M J Lambregts; Geerard L Beets; Monique Maas; Luís Curvo-Semedo; Alfons G H Kessels; Thomas Thywissen; Regina G H Beets-Tan
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-08-07       Impact factor: 5.315

View more
  16 in total

1.  Nonsuppressing normal thymus on chemical-shift MR imaging and anterior mediastinal lymphoma: differentiation with diffusion-weighted MR imaging by using the apparent diffusion coefficient.

Authors:  Adriano Massimiliano Priola; Sandro Massimo Priola; Dario Gned; Maria Teresa Giraudo; Andrea Veltri
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-11-15       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Incidentally detected enhancing lesions found in breast MRI: analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient and T2 signal intensity significantly improves specificity.

Authors:  Otso Arponen; Amro Masarwah; Anna Sutela; Mikko Taina; Mervi Könönen; Reijo Sironen; Juhana Hakumäki; Ritva Vanninen; Mazen Sudah
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-04-25       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Diagnostic Value of Diffusion-weighted Imaging and Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Values in the Differentiation of Breast Lesions, Histpathologic Subgroups and Correlatıon with Prognostıc Factors using 3.0 Tesla MR.

Authors:  Yasin Akın; M Ümit Uğurlu; Handan Kaya; Erkin Arıbal
Journal:  J Breast Health       Date:  2016-07-01

4.  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

5.  Test-retest repeatability and reproducibility of ADC measures by breast DWI: Results from the ACRIN 6698 trial.

Authors:  David C Newitt; Zheng Zhang; Jessica E Gibbs; Savannah C Partridge; Thomas L Chenevert; Mark A Rosen; Patrick J Bolan; Helga S Marques; Sheye Aliu; Wen Li; Lisa Cimino; Bonnie N Joe; Heidi Umphrey; Haydee Ojeda-Fournier; Basak Dogan; Karen Oh; Hiroyuki Abe; Jennifer Drukteinis; Laura J Esserman; Nola M Hylton
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2018-10-22       Impact factor: 4.813

6.  Diffusion-Weighted MRI of the Breast in Women with a History of Mantle Radiation: Does Radiation Alter Apparent Diffusion Coefficient?

Authors:  Punam Bajaj; Chiara Iacconi; David D Dershaw; Elizabeth A Morris
Journal:  J Breast Imaging       Date:  2019-08-29

7.  Diffusion-weighted Imaging Allows for Downgrading MR BI-RADS 4 Lesions in Contrast-enhanced MRI of the Breast to Avoid Unnecessary Biopsy.

Authors:  Paola Clauser; Barbara Krug; Hubert Bickel; Matthias Dietzel; Katja Pinker; Victor-Frederic Neuhaus; Maria Adele Marino; Marco Moschetta; Nicoletta Troiano; Thomas H Helbich; Pascal A T Baltzer
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2021-01-14       Impact factor: 12.531

8.  Multisite concordance of apparent diffusion coefficient measurements across the NCI Quantitative Imaging Network.

Authors:  David C Newitt; Dariya Malyarenko; Thomas L Chenevert; C Chad Quarles; Laura Bell; Andriy Fedorov; Fiona Fennessy; Michael A Jacobs; Meiyappan Solaiyappan; Stefanie Hectors; Bachir Taouli; Mark Muzi; Paul E Kinahan; Kathleen M Schmainda; Melissa A Prah; Erin N Taber; Christopher Kroenke; Wei Huang; Lori R Arlinghaus; Thomas E Yankeelov; Yue Cao; Madhava Aryal; Yi-Fen Yen; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Amita Shukla-Dave; Maggie Fung; Jiachao Liang; Michael Boss; Nola Hylton
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2017-10-10

9.  Impact of post-processing methods on apparent diffusion coefficient values.

Authors:  Martin Georg Zeilinger; Michael Lell; Pascal Andreas Thomas Baltzer; Arnd Dörfler; Michael Uder; Matthias Dietzel
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Repeatability and Reproducibility of ADC Histogram Metrics from the ACRIN 6698 Breast Cancer Therapy Response Trial.

Authors:  David C Newitt; Ghoncheh Amouzandeh; Savannah C Partridge; Helga S Marques; Benjamin A Herman; Brian D Ross; Nola M Hylton; Thomas L Chenevert; Dariya I Malyarenko
Journal:  Tomography       Date:  2020-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.