Jing Yuan1, Oi Lei Wong1, Gladys G Lo2, Helen H L Chan2, Ting Ting Wong3, Polly S Y Cheung3. 1. Medical Physics and Research Department, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Hong Kong, China. 2. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Hong Kong, China. 3. Breast Care Centre, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Happy Valley, Hong Kong, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to statistically assess whether bi-exponential intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) model better characterizes diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) signal of malignant breast tumor than mono-exponential Gaussian diffusion model. METHODS: 3 T DWI data of 29 malignant breast tumors were retrospectively included. Linear least-square mono-exponential fitting and segmented least-square bi-exponential fitting were used for apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and IVIM parameter quantification, respectively. F-test and Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) were used to statistically assess the preference of mono-exponential and bi-exponential model using region-of-interests (ROI)-averaged and voxel-wise analysis. RESULTS: For ROI-averaged analysis, 15 tumors were significantly better fitted by bi-exponential function and 14 tumors exhibited mono-exponential behavior. The calculated ADC, D (true diffusion coefficient) and f (pseudo-diffusion fraction) showed no significant differences between mono-exponential and bi-exponential preferable tumors. Voxel-wise analysis revealed that 27 tumors contained more voxels exhibiting mono-exponential DWI decay while only 2 tumors presented more bi-exponential decay voxels. ADC was consistently and significantly larger than D for both ROI-averaged and voxel-wise analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Although the presence of IVIM effect in malignant breast tumors could be suggested, statistical assessment shows that bi-exponential fitting does not necessarily better represent the DWI signal decay in breast cancer under clinically typical acquisition protocol and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Our study indicates the importance to statistically examine the breast cancer DWI signal characteristics in practice.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to statistically assess whether bi-exponential intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) model better characterizes diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) signal of malignant breast tumor than mono-exponential Gaussian diffusion model. METHODS: 3 T DWI data of 29 malignant breast tumors were retrospectively included. Linear least-square mono-exponential fitting and segmented least-square bi-exponential fitting were used for apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and IVIM parameter quantification, respectively. F-test and Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) were used to statistically assess the preference of mono-exponential and bi-exponential model using region-of-interests (ROI)-averaged and voxel-wise analysis. RESULTS: For ROI-averaged analysis, 15 tumors were significantly better fitted by bi-exponential function and 14 tumors exhibited mono-exponential behavior. The calculated ADC, D (true diffusion coefficient) and f (pseudo-diffusion fraction) showed no significant differences between mono-exponential and bi-exponential preferable tumors. Voxel-wise analysis revealed that 27 tumors contained more voxels exhibiting mono-exponential DWI decay while only 2 tumors presented more bi-exponential decay voxels. ADC was consistently and significantly larger than D for both ROI-averaged and voxel-wise analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Although the presence of IVIM effect in malignant breast tumors could be suggested, statistical assessment shows that bi-exponential fitting does not necessarily better represent the DWI signal decay in breast cancer under clinically typical acquisition protocol and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Our study indicates the importance to statistically examine the breast cancer DWI signal characteristics in practice.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC); diffusion weighted imaging (DWI); intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM); magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
Authors: Moti Freiman; Jeannette M Perez-Rossello; Michael J Callahan; Stephan D Voss; Kirsten Ecklund; Robert V Mulkern; Simon K Warfield Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2013-01-03 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: E R Horak; R Leek; N Klenk; S LeJeune; K Smith; N Stuart; M Greenall; K Stepniewska; A L Harris Journal: Lancet Date: 1992-11-07 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Benedikt Hager; Sonja M Walzer; Xeni Deligianni; Oliver Bieri; Andreas Berg; Markus M Schreiner; Martin Zalaudek; Reinhard Windhager; Siegfried Trattnig; Vladimir Juras Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-09-30 Impact factor: 4.668