Literature DB >> 30328211

Feasibility and Diagnostic Performance of Voxelwise Computed Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in Breast Cancer.

Jiejie Zhou1, Endong Chen2, Huazhi Xu1, Qiong Ye1, Jiance Li1, Shuxin Ye1, Qinyuan Cheng1, Liang Zhao1, Min-Ying Su3, Meihao Wang1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Conventional diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) with high b-values may improve lesion conspicuity, but with a low signal intensity and thus a low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). The voxelwise computed DWI (vcDWI) may generate high-quality images with a strong lesion signal and low background.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility and diagnostic performance of vcDWI. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. POPULATION: In all, 67 patients with 72 lesions, 33 malignant and 39 benign. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3T, including T2 /T1 , DWI with two b-values, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI). ASSESSMENT: Computed DWI (cDWI) with high b-values of 1500, 2000, 2500 s/mm2 (cDWI1500 , cDWI2000 , cDWI2500 ) and vcDWI were generated from measured DWI (mDWI). The mDWI, cDWIs and vcDWI were evaluated by three readers independently to determine lesion conspicuity, background signal suppression, overall image quality using 1-5 rating scales, as well as to give BI-RADS scores. The mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value for each lesion was measured. STATISTICAL TESTS: Agreement among the three readers was evaluated by the intraclass correlation coefficient. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to compare the diagnostic performance based on reading of mDWI, cDWIs, vcDWI, and the measured ADC values.
RESULTS: vcDWI provided the best lesion conspicuity compared with mDWI and cDWIs (P < 0.005). For overall image quality, vcDWI was significantly better than cDWI (P < 0.005), but not significantly better compared with mDWI for two readers (P = 0.037 and P = 0.013) and significantly worse for the third reader (P < 0.005). Background signal suppression was the best on cDWI2500 , and better on vcDWI than on mDWI, cDWI1500 , and cDWI2000 . The AUC value for differential diagnosis was 0.868 for mDWI, 0.862 for cDWI1500 , 0.781 for cDWI2000 , 0.704 for cDWI2500 , 0.946 for vcDWI, 0.704 for ADC value, and 0.961 for DCE-MRI. DATA
CONCLUSION: vcDWI was implemented without increasing scanning time, and it provided excellent lesion conspicuity for detection of breast lesions and assisted in differentiating malignant from benign breast lesions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018.
© 2018 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast cancer diagnosis; computed diffusion weighted imaging (cDWI); diffusion weighted imaging (DWI); voxelwise cDWI (vcDWI

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30328211      PMCID: PMC6690367          DOI: 10.1002/jmri.26533

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging        ISSN: 1053-1807            Impact factor:   4.813


  26 in total

1.  Dynamic high-spatial-resolution MR imaging of suspicious breast lesions: diagnostic criteria and interobserver variability.

Authors:  K Kinkel; T H Helbich; L J Esserman; J Barclay; E H Schwerin; E A Sickles; N M Hylton
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Comparisons of multi b-value DWI signal analysis with pathological specimen of breast cancer.

Authors:  Takayuki Tamura; Shuji Usui; Shigeru Murakami; Koji Arihiro; Takashi Fujimoto; Tamaki Yamada; Kumiko Naito; Mitoshi Akiyama
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2011-12-08       Impact factor: 4.668

Review 3.  Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging of the breast.

Authors:  Fernanda Philadelpho Arantes Pereira; Gabriela Martins; Raquel de Vasconcellos Carvalhaes de Oliveira
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 2.266

Review 4.  Artifacts and pitfalls in diffusion MRI.

Authors:  Denis Le Bihan; Cyril Poupon; Alexis Amadon; Franck Lethimonnier
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 4.813

5.  Meta-analysis of MR imaging in the diagnosis of breast lesions.

Authors:  Nicky H G M Peters; Inne H M Borel Rinkes; Nicolaas P A Zuithoff; Willem P T M Mali; Karel G M Moons; Petra H M Peeters
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-11-16       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging as an adjunct to conventional breast MRI for improved positive predictive value.

Authors:  Savannah C Partridge; Wendy B DeMartini; Brenda F Kurland; Peter R Eby; Steven W White; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  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

8.  Diffusion-weighted MR imaging: pretreatment prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer.

Authors:  Sang Hee Park; Woo Kyung Moon; Nariya Cho; In Chan Song; Jung Min Chang; In-Ae Park; Wonshik Han; Dong-Young Noh
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Computed diffusion-weighted MR imaging may improve tumor detection.

Authors:  Matthew D Blackledge; Martin O Leach; David J Collins; Dow-Mu Koh
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-08-18       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 10.  Diffusion-weighted MRI in the body: applications and challenges in oncology.

Authors:  Dow-Mu Koh; David J Collins
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 3.959

View more
  6 in total

1.  Breast Cancer Conspicuity on Computed Versus Acquired High b-Value Diffusion-Weighted MRI.

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

Review 2.  Current and Emerging Magnetic Resonance-Based Techniques for Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Apekshya Chhetri; Xin Li; Joseph V Rispoli
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2020-05-12

3.  Can apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) distinguish breast cancer from benign breast findings? A meta-analysis based on 13 847 lesions.

Authors:  Alexey Surov; Hans Jonas Meyer; Andreas Wienke
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2019-10-15       Impact factor: 4.430

4.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Peritoneal Carcinomatosis: Evaluation of High b-Value Computed Diffusion-Weighted Imaging.

Authors:  Maxime Ablefoni; Jakob Leonhardi; Constantin Ehrengut; Matthias Mehdorn; Robert Sucher; Ines Gockel; Timm Denecke; Hans-Jonas Meyer
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2022-06-29       Impact factor: 3.109

5.  Feasibility Study of Synthetic Diffusion-Weighted MRI in Patients with Breast Cancer in Comparison with Conventional Diffusion-Weighted MRI.

Authors:  Bo Hwa Choi; Hye Jin Baek; Ji Young Ha; Kyeong Hwa Ryu; Jin Il Moon; Sung Eun Park; Kyungsoo Bae; Kyung Nyeo Jeon; Eun Jung Jung
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2020-09       Impact factor: 3.500

6.  Diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted imaging with synthetic b-values in breast tumors: comparison with dynamic contrast-enhanced and multiparametric MRI.

Authors:  Isaac Daimiel Naranjo; Roberto Lo Gullo; Carolina Saccarelli; Sunitha B Thakur; Almir Bitencourt; Elizabeth A Morris; Maxine S Jochelson; Varadan Sevilimedu; Danny F Martinez; Katja Pinker-Domenig
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2020-08-11       Impact factor: 5.315

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.