OBJECTIVES: To assess the value of computed diffusion-weighted imaging (cDWI) and voxelwise computed diffusion-weighted imaging (vcDWI) in breast cancer. METHODS: This retrospective study involved 130 patients (age range, 25-70 years; mean age ± standard deviation, 48.6 ± 10.5 years) with 130 malignant lesions, who underwent MRI examinations, including a DWI sequence, prior to needle biopsy or surgery. cDWIs with higher b-values of 1500, 2000, 2500, 3000, 3500, and 4000 s/mm2, and vcDWI were generated from measured (m) DWI with two lower b-values of 0/600, 0/800, or 0/1000 s/mm2. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast ratio (CR) of all image sets were computed and compared among different DWIs by two experienced radiologists independently. To better compare the CR with the SNR, the CR value was multiplied by 100 (CR100). RESULTS: The CR of vcDWI, and cDWIs, except for cDWI1000, differed significantly from that of measured diffusion-weighted imaging (mDWI) (cDWI1000: CR = 0.4904, p = 0.394; cDWI1500: CR = 0.5503, p = 0.006; cDWI2000: CR = 0.5889, p < 0.001; cDWI2500: CR = 0.6109, p < 0.001; cDWI3000: mean = 0.6214, p < 0.001; cDWI3500: CR = 0.6245, p < 0.001; cDWI4000: CR = 0.6228, p < 0.001). The vcDWI provided the highest CR, while the CRs of all cDWI image sets improved with increased b-values. The SNR of neither cDWI1000 nor vcDWI differed significantly from that of mDWI, but the mean SNRs of the remaining cDWIs were significantly lower than that of mDWI. The SNRs of cDWIs declined with increasing b-values, and the initial decrease at low b-values was steeper than the gradual attenuation at higher b-values; the CR100 rose gradually, and the two converged on the b-value interval of 1500-2000 s/mm2 . CONCLUSIONS: The highest CR was achieved with vcDWI; this could be a promising approach easier detection of breast cancer. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study comprehensively compared and evaluated the value of the emerging post-processing DWI techniques (including a set of cDWIs and vcDWI) in breast cancer.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the value of computed diffusion-weighted imaging (cDWI) and voxelwise computed diffusion-weighted imaging (vcDWI) in breast cancer. METHODS: This retrospective study involved 130 patients (age range, 25-70 years; mean age ± standard deviation, 48.6 ± 10.5 years) with 130 malignant lesions, who underwent MRI examinations, including a DWI sequence, prior to needle biopsy or surgery. cDWIs with higher b-values of 1500, 2000, 2500, 3000, 3500, and 4000 s/mm2, and vcDWI were generated from measured (m) DWI with two lower b-values of 0/600, 0/800, or 0/1000 s/mm2. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast ratio (CR) of all image sets were computed and compared among different DWIs by two experienced radiologists independently. To better compare the CR with the SNR, the CR value was multiplied by 100 (CR100). RESULTS: The CR of vcDWI, and cDWIs, except for cDWI1000, differed significantly from that of measured diffusion-weighted imaging (mDWI) (cDWI1000: CR = 0.4904, p = 0.394; cDWI1500: CR = 0.5503, p = 0.006; cDWI2000: CR = 0.5889, p < 0.001; cDWI2500: CR = 0.6109, p < 0.001; cDWI3000: mean = 0.6214, p < 0.001; cDWI3500: CR = 0.6245, p < 0.001; cDWI4000: CR = 0.6228, p < 0.001). The vcDWI provided the highest CR, while the CRs of all cDWI image sets improved with increased b-values. The SNR of neither cDWI1000 nor vcDWI differed significantly from that of mDWI, but the mean SNRs of the remaining cDWIs were significantly lower than that of mDWI. The SNRs of cDWIs declined with increasing b-values, and the initial decrease at low b-values was steeper than the gradual attenuation at higher b-values; the CR100 rose gradually, and the two converged on the b-value interval of 1500-2000 s/mm2 . CONCLUSIONS: The highest CR was achieved with vcDWI; this could be a promising approach easier detection of breast cancer. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study comprehensively compared and evaluated the value of the emerging post-processing DWI techniques (including a set of cDWIs and vcDWI) in breast cancer.
Authors: Anwar R Padhani; Guoying Liu; Dow Mu Koh; Thomas L Chenevert; Harriet C Thoeny; Taro Takahara; Andrew Dzik-Jurasz; Brian D Ross; Marc Van Cauteren; David Collins; Dima A Hammoud; Gordon J S Rustin; Bachir Taouli; Peter L Choyke Journal: Neoplasia Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 5.715
Authors: Andreas Stadlbauer; Reinhard Bernt; Stephan Gruber; Wolfgang Bogner; Katja Pinker; Wilma van der Riet; Jörg Haller; Erich Salomonowitz Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-05-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Thomas Sartoretti; Elisabeth Sartoretti; Michael Wyss; Manoj Mannil; Luuk van Smoorenburg; Barbara Eichenberger; Carolin Reischauer; Alex Alfieri; Christoph Binkert; Sabine Sartoretti-Schefer Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-02-17 Impact factor: 3.039
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: 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