Literature DB >> 26550121

Diagnostic performance of ADCs in different ROIs for breast lesions.

Wei Zhang1, Guan-Qiao Jin1, Jun-Jie Liu2, Dan-Ke Su1, Ning-Bin Luo1, Dong Xie1, Shao-Lv Lai1, Xiang-Yang Huang1, Wei-Li Huang1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explore the diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values for breast lesions by different measuring methods and find out the optimum measuring method.
METHODS: ADCW-mean and ADCW-min were obtained by whole-measurement method, while ADCmean and ADCmin were extracted by spot-measurement method. Four ADCs were analyzed by One-way ANOVA and Independent T-test. The diagnostic performances of these four ADCs were calculated by receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves and the area under the curves (AUC) were compared through Z-test.
RESULTS: For the whole-measurement method, there were significant differences between malignant and benign lesions (ADCW-mean=1.014±0.197 for malignant, ADCW-mean=1.650±0.348 for benign, F=37.511, P<0.001; ADCW-min=0.627±0.144 for malignant, ADCW-min=1.245±0.290 for benign, F=41.446, P<0.001), as well as the spot-measurement method (ADCmean=1.010±0.234 for malignant, ADCmean=1.648±0.392 for benign, F=34.580, P<0.001; ADCmin=0.817±0.203 for malignant, ADCmin=1.411±0.357 for benign, F=40.039, P<0.001). The optimal diagnostic threshold of ADCW-mean, ADCW-min, ADCmean, and ADCmin values were 1.223×10(-3) mm(2)/s, 0.897×10(-3) mm(2)/s, 1.315×10(-3) mm(2)/s, and 1.111×10(-3) mm(2)/s, respectively. ROC curves indicated that the AUC for ADCW-min (0.969) was statistically significant higher than the AUC for ADCW-mean (0.940; Z=2.473, p=0.013), ADCmean (0.919; Z=3.691, P=0.000), and ADCmin (0.928; Z=3.634, P=0.000). The AUC for ADCW-mean was also significantly higher than the AUC for ADCmean (Z=2.863, P=0.004).
CONCLUSION: The results provided evidence that the most reliable and accurate value in demonstrating the limitation of diffusion may be ADCW-min, and it has the highest diagnostic value in distinguishing breast lesions from malignant to benign.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Diagnostic performance; apparent diffusion coefficient; breast lesions

Year:  2015        PMID: 26550121      PMCID: PMC4612806     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med        ISSN: 1940-5901


  29 in total

1.  Apparent diffusion coefficient as an MR imaging biomarker of low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ: a pilot study.

Authors:  Mami Iima; Denis Le Bihan; Ryosuke Okumura; Tomohisa Okada; Koji Fujimoto; Shotaro Kanao; Shiro Tanaka; Masakazu Fujimoto; Hiromi Sakashita; Kaori Togashi
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-06-01       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  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

3.  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

4.  Assessment of breast lesions with diffusion-weighted MRI: comparing the use of different b values.

Authors:  Fernanda Philadelpho Arantes Pereira; Gabriela Martins; Eduardo Figueiredo; Marisa Nassar Aidar Domingues; Romeu Cortes Domingues; Lea Mirian Barbosa da Fonseca; Emerson Leandro Gasparetto
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 3.959

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

6.  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

7.  Differentiation of clinically benign and malignant breast lesions using diffusion-weighted imaging.

Authors:  Yong Guo; You-Quan Cai; Zu-Long Cai; Yuan-Gui Gao; Ning-Yu An; Lin Ma; Srikanth Mahankali; Jia-Hong Gao
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 4.813

8.  Apparent diffusion coefficient ratio between axillary lymph node with primary tumor to detect nodal metastasis in breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Ningbin Luo; Danke Su; Guanqiao Jin; Lidong Liu; Xuna Zhu; Dong Xie; Younan Liu
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2013-02-25       Impact factor: 4.813

9.  Diffusion-weighted imaging of breast cancer: correlation of the apparent diffusion coefficient value with prognostic factors.

Authors:  Sung Hun Kim; Eun Suk Cha; Hyeon Sook Kim; Bong Joo Kang; Jae Jeong Choi; Ji Han Jung; Yong Gyu Park; Young Jin Suh
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 4.813

10.  Relation between cancer cellularity and apparent diffusion coefficient values using diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer.

Authors:  Miho I Yoshikawa; Shozo Ohsumi; Shigenori Sugata; Masaaki Kataoka; Shigemitsu Takashima; Teruhito Mochizuki; Hirohiko Ikura; Yutaka Imai
Journal:  Radiat Med       Date:  2008-05-29
View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  [Diffusion-weighted imaging-diagnostic supplement or alternative to contrast agents in early detection of malignancies?]

Authors:  S Bickelhaupt; C Dreher; F König; K Deike-Hofmann; D Paech; H P Schlemmer; T A Kuder
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 0.635

2.  The apparent diffusion coefficient is a useful biomarker in predicting treatment response in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

Authors:  Mayra Evelia Jiménez de Los Santos; Juan Armando Reyes-Pérez; Rosa Martha Sandoval-Nava; José Luis Villalobos-Juárez; Yolanda Villaseñor-Navarro; Itzel Vela-Sarmiento; Isabel Sollozo-Dupont
Journal:  Acta Radiol Open       Date:  2020-09-15

3.  Identification of endothelial selectin as a potential prognostic marker in breast cancer.

Authors:  Wei Zhang; Zhichao Zuo; Xiangyang Huang; Junjie Liu; Guanqiao Jin; Danke Su
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2018-04-25       Impact factor: 2.967

4.  Diffusion weighted imaging of the breast: Performance of standardized breast tumor tissue selection methods in clinical decision making.

Authors:  M Wielema; P E Sijens; H Dijkstra; G H De Bock; I G van Bruggen; J E Siegersma; E Langius; R M Pijnappel; M D Dorrius; M Oudkerk
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-01-25       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  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 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.