Literature DB >> 29095673

Intravoxel Incoherent Motion and Quantitative Non-Gaussian Diffusion MR Imaging: Evaluation of the Diagnostic and Prognostic Value of Several Markers of Malignant and Benign Breast Lesions.

Mami Iima1, Masako Kataoka1, Shotaro Kanao1, Natsuko Onishi1, Makiko Kawai1, Akane Ohashi1, Rena Sakaguchi1, Masakazu Toi1, Kaori Togashi1.   

Abstract

Purpose To investigate the performance of integrated approaches that combined intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) and non-Gaussian diffusion parameters compared with the Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System (BI-RADS) to establish multiparameter thresholds scores or probabilities by using Bayesian analysis to distinguish malignant from benign breast lesions and their correlation with molecular prognostic factors. Materials and Methods Between May 2013 and March 2015, 411 patients were prospectively enrolled and 199 patients (allocated to training [n = 99] and validation [n = 100] sets) were included in this study. IVIM parameters (flowing blood volume fraction [fIVIM] and pseudodiffusion coefficient [D*]) and non-Gaussian diffusion parameters (theoretical apparent diffusion coefficient [ADC] at b value of 0 sec/mm2 [ADC0] and kurtosis [K]) by using IVIM and kurtosis models were estimated from diffusion-weighted image series (16 b values up to 2500 sec/mm2), as well as a synthetic ADC (sADC) calculated by using b values of 200 and 1500 (sADC200-1500) and a standard ADC calculated by using b values of 0 and 800 sec/mm2 (ADC0-800). The performance of two diagnostic approaches (combined parameter thresholds and Bayesian analysis) combining IVIM and diffusion parameters was evaluated and compared with BI-RADS performance. The Mann-Whitney U test and a nonparametric multiple comparison test were used to compare their performance to determine benignity or malignancy and as molecular prognostic biomarkers and subtypes of breast cancer. Results Significant differences were found between malignant and benign breast lesions for IVIM and non-Gaussian diffusion parameters (ADC0, K, fIVIM, fIVIM · D*, sADC200-1500, and ADC0-800; P < .05). Sensitivity and specificity for the validation set by radiologists A and B were as follows: sensitivity, 94.7% and 89.5%, and specificity, 75.0% and 79.2% for sADC200-1500, respectively; sensitivity, 94.7% and 96.1%, and specificity, 75.0% and 66.7%, for the combined thresholds approach, respectively; sensitivity, 92.1% and 92.1%, and specificity, 83.3% and 66.7%, for Bayesian analysis, respectively; and sensitivity and specificity, 100% and 79.2%, for BI-RADS, respectively. The significant difference in values of sADC200-1500 in progesterone receptor status (P = .002) was noted. sADC200-1500 was significantly different between histologic subtypes (P = .006). Conclusion Approaches that combined various IVIM and non-Gaussian diffusion MR imaging parameters may provide BI-RADS-equivalent scores almost comparable to BI-RADS categories without the use of contrast agents. Non-Gaussian diffusion parameters also differed by biologic prognostic factors. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29095673     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017162853

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  26 in total

1.  Added value of mean and entropy of apparent diffusion coefficient values for evaluating histologic phenotypes of invasive ductal breast cancer with MR imaging.

Authors:  Shiteng Suo; Dandan Zhang; Fang Cheng; Mengqiu Cao; Jia Hua; Jinsong Lu; Jianrong Xu
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-08-16       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Diffusion kurtosis imaging provides quantitative assessment of the microstructure changes of disc degeneration: an in vivo experimental study.

Authors:  Li Li; Zhiguo Zhou; Jing Li; Jicheng Fang; Yuanyuan Qing; Tian Tian; Shun Zhang; Gang Wu; Alessandro Scotti; Kejia Cai; WenZhen Zhu
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-02-18       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Differentiating between malignant and benign renal tumors: do IVIM and diffusion kurtosis imaging perform better than DWI?

Authors:  Yuqin Ding; Qinxuan Tan; Wei Mao; Chenchen Dai; Xiaoyi Hu; Jun Hou; Mengsu Zeng; Jianjun Zhou
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-06-03       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  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

5.  Identification of histological features of endometrioid adenocarcinoma based on amide proton transfer-weighted imaging and multimodel diffusion-weighted imaging.

Authors:  Fangfang Fu; Nan Meng; Zhun Huang; Jing Sun; Xuejia Wang; Jie Shang; Ting Fang; Pengyang Feng; Kaiyu Wang; Dongming Han; Meiyun Wang
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2022-02

6.  Correlation between diffusion kurtosis and intravoxel incoherent motion derived (IVIM) parameters and tumor tissue composition in rectal cancer: a pilot study.

Authors:  Jie Yuan; Zhigang Gong; Kun Liu; Jingjing Song; Qun Wen; Wenli Tan; Songhua Zhan; Qiang Shen
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2022-02-02

7.  Mean Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Is a Sufficient Conventional Diffusion-weighted MRI Metric to Improve Breast MRI Diagnostic Performance: Results from the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group A6702 Diffusion Imaging Trial.

Authors:  Elizabeth S McDonald; Justin Romanoff; Habib Rahbar; Averi E Kitsch; Sara M Harvey; Jennifer G Whisenant; Thomas E Yankeelov; Linda Moy; Wendy B DeMartini; Basak E Dogan; Wei T Yang; Lilian C Wang; Bonnie N Joe; Lisa J Wilmes; Nola M Hylton; Karen Y Oh; Luminita A Tudorica; Colleen H Neal; Dariya I Malyarenko; Christopher E Comstock; Mitchell D Schnall; Thomas L Chenevert; Savannah C Partridge
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2020-11-17       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Discrimination of Breast Cancer from Healthy Breast Tissue Using a Three-component Diffusion-weighted MRI Model.

Authors:  Maren M Sjaastad Andreassen; Ana E Rodríguez-Soto; Rebecca Rakow-Penner; Anders M Dale; Christopher C Conlin; Igor Vidić; Tyler M Seibert; Anne M Wallace; Somaye Zare; Joshua Kuperman; Boya Abudu; Grace S Ahn; Michael Hahn; Neil P Jerome; Agnes Østlie; Tone F Bathen; Haydee Ojeda-Fournier; Pål Erik Goa
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2020-11-04       Impact factor: 12.531

9.  Diffusion-weighted MRI for predicting pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: evaluation with mono-, bi-, and stretched-exponential models.

Authors:  Shiteng Suo; Yan Yin; Xiaochuan Geng; Dandan Zhang; Jia Hua; Fang Cheng; Jie Chen; Zhiguo Zhuang; Mengqiu Cao; Jianrong Xu
Journal:  J Transl Med       Date:  2021-06-02       Impact factor: 5.531

Review 10.  Perfusion-driven Intravoxel Incoherent Motion (IVIM) MRI in Oncology: Applications, Challenges, and Future Trends.

Authors:  Mami Iima
Journal:  Magn Reson Med Sci       Date:  2020-06-15       Impact factor: 2.471

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.