PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic sensitivity of computed diffusion-weighted (DW)-MR imaging for the detection of breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Local research ethics approval was obtained. A total of 61 women (median 48 years) underwent dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE)- and DW-MR between January 2011 and March 2012, including 27 with breast cancer on core biopsy and 34 normal cases. Standard ADC maps using all four b values (0, 350, 700, 1150) were used to generate computed DW-MR images at b = 1500 s/mm(2) and b = 2000 s/mm(2) . Four image sets were read sequentially by two readers: acquired b = 1150 s/mm(2) , computed b = 1500 s/mm(2) and b = 2000 s/mm(2) , and DCE-MR at an early time point. Cancer detection was rated using a five-point scale; image quality and background suppression were rated using a four-point scale. The diagnostic sensitivity for breast cancer detection was compared using the McNemar test and inter-reader agreement with a Kappa value. RESULTS: Computed DW-MR resulted in higher overall diagnostic sensitivity with b = 2000 s/mm(2) having a mean diagnostic sensitivity of 76% (range 49.8-93.7%) and b = 1500 s/mm(2) having a mean diagnostic sensitivity of 70.3% (range 32-97.7%) compared with 44.4% (range 25.5-64.7%) for acquired b = 1150 s/mm(2) (both p = 0.0001). Computed DW-MR images produced better image quality and background suppression (mean scores for both readers: 2.55 and 2.9 for b 1500 s/mm(2) ; 2.55 and 3.15 for b 2000 s/mm(2) , respectively) than the acquired b value 1150 s/mm(2) images (mean scores for both readers: 2.4 and 2.45, respectively). CONCLUSION: Computed DW-MR imaging has the potential to improve the diagnostic sensitivity of breast cancer detection compared to acquired DW-MR. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;44:130-137.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic sensitivity of computed diffusion-weighted (DW)-MR imaging for the detection of breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Local research ethics approval was obtained. A total of 61 women (median 48 years) underwent dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE)- and DW-MR between January 2011 and March 2012, including 27 with breast cancer on core biopsy and 34 normal cases. Standard ADC maps using all four b values (0, 350, 700, 1150) were used to generate computed DW-MR images at b = 1500 s/mm(2) and b = 2000 s/mm(2) . Four image sets were read sequentially by two readers: acquired b = 1150 s/mm(2) , computed b = 1500 s/mm(2) and b = 2000 s/mm(2) , and DCE-MR at an early time point. Cancer detection was rated using a five-point scale; image quality and background suppression were rated using a four-point scale. The diagnostic sensitivity for breast cancer detection was compared using the McNemar test and inter-reader agreement with a Kappa value. RESULTS: Computed DW-MR resulted in higher overall diagnostic sensitivity with b = 2000 s/mm(2) having a mean diagnostic sensitivity of 76% (range 49.8-93.7%) and b = 1500 s/mm(2) having a mean diagnostic sensitivity of 70.3% (range 32-97.7%) compared with 44.4% (range 25.5-64.7%) for acquired b = 1150 s/mm(2) (both p = 0.0001). Computed DW-MR images produced better image quality and background suppression (mean scores for both readers: 2.55 and 2.9 for b 1500 s/mm(2) ; 2.55 and 3.15 for b 2000 s/mm(2) , respectively) than the acquired b value 1150 s/mm(2) images (mean scores for both readers: 2.4 and 2.45, respectively). CONCLUSION: Computed DW-MR imaging has the potential to improve the diagnostic sensitivity of breast cancer detection compared to acquired DW-MR. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;44:130-137.
Authors: Hakmook Kang; Allison Hainline; Lori R Arlinghaus; Stephanie Elderidge; Xia Li; Vandana G Abramson; Anuradha Bapsi Chakravarthy; Richard G Abramson; Brian Bingham; Kareem Fakhoury; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2017-12-29
Authors: Michaela R DelPriore; Debosmita Biswas; Daniel S Hippe; Mladen Zecevic; Sana Parsian; John R Scheel; Habib Rahbar; Savannah C Partridge Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2020-04-16 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Hubert Bickel; Stephan H Polanec; Georg Wengert; Katja Pinker; Wolfgang Bogner; Thomas H Helbich; Pascal A Baltzer Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-05-28 Impact factor: 4.813