Literature DB >> 33368734

Diffusivity in breast malignancies analyzed for b > 1000 s/mm2 at 1 mm in-plane resolutions: Insight from Gaussian and non-Gaussian behaviors.

Martins Otikovs1, Noam Nissan2, Edna Furman-Haran3,4, Debbie Anaby2, Tanir M Allweis5, Ravit Agassi6, Miri Sklair-Levy2,7, Lucio Frydman1,4.   

Abstract

Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) can improve breast cancer characterizations, but often suffers from low image quality -particularly at informative b > 1000 s/mm2 values. The aim of this study was to evaluate multishot approaches characterizing Gaussian and non-Gaussian diffusivities in breast cancer. This was a prospective study, in which 15 subjects, including 13 patients with biopsy-confirmed breast cancers, were enrolled. DWI was acquired at 3 T using echo planar imaging (EPI) with and without zoomed excitations, readout-segmented EPI (RESOLVE), and spatiotemporal encoding (SPEN); dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) data were collected using three-dimensional gradient-echo T1 weighting; anatomies were evaluated with T2 -weighted two-dimensional turbo spin-echo. Congruence between malignancies delineated by DCE was assessed against high-resolution DWI scans with b-values in the 0-1800 s/mm2 range, as well as against apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and kurtosis maps. Data were evaluated by independent magnetic resonance scientists with 3-20 years of experience, and radiologists with 6 and 20 years of experience in breast MRI. Malignancies were assessed from ADC and kurtosis maps, using paired t tests after confirming that these values had a Gaussian distribution. Agreements between DWI and DCE datasets were also evaluated using Sorensen-Dice similarity coefficients. Cancerous and normal tissues were clearly separable by ADCs: by SPEN their average values were (1.03 ± 0.17) × 10-3 and (1.69 ± 0.19) × 10-3  mm2 /s (p < 0.0001); by RESOLVE these values were (1.16 ± 0.16) × 10-3 and (1.52 ± 0.14) × 10-3 (p = 0.00026). Kurtosis also distinguished lesions (K = 0.64 ± 0.15) from normal tissues (K = 0.45 ± 0.05), but only when measured by SPEN (p = 0.0008). The best statistical agreement with DCE-highlighted regions arose for SPEN-based DWIs recorded with b = 1800 s/mm2 (Sorensen-Dice coefficient = 0.67); DWI data recorded with b = 850 and 1200 s/mm2 , led to lower coefficients. Both ADC and kurtosis maps highlighted the breast malignancies, with ADCs providing a more significant separation. The most promising alternative for contrast-free delineations of the cancerous lesions arose from b = 1800 s/mm2 DWI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2. TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 3.
© 2020 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast cancer diagnosis; diffusion kurtosis imaging; diffusion-weighted imaging; spatiotemporal encoding

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33368734     DOI: 10.1002/jmri.27489

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


  5 in total

Review 1.  Diffusion-weighted imaging in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Tsutomu Tamada; Yu Ueda; Yoshiko Ueno; Yuichi Kojima; Ayumu Kido; Akira Yamamoto
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2021-09-07       Impact factor: 2.533

2.  Quantitative Parameters of Diffusion Spectrum Imaging: HER2 Status Prediction in Patients With Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Chunping Mao; Wei Jiang; Jiayi Huang; Mengzhu Wang; Xu Yan; Zehong Yang; Dongye Wang; Xiang Zhang; Jun Shen
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-02-03       Impact factor: 6.244

Review 3.  Breast MRI during pregnancy and lactation: clinical challenges and technical advances.

Authors:  Noam Nissan; Ethan Bauer; Efi Efraim Moss Massasa; Miri Sklair-Levy
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2022-04-09

Review 4.  Diagnostic Performance of Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging for Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Hongyu Gu; Wenjing Cui; Song Luo; Xiaoyi Deng
Journal:  Appl Bionics Biomech       Date:  2022-06-09       Impact factor: 1.664

5.  Comparison of single-shot EPI and multi-shot EPI in prostate DWI at 3.0 T.

Authors:  Tsutomu Tamada; Ayumu Kido; Yu Ueda; Mitsuru Takeuchi; Akihiko Kanki; Jaladhar Neelavalli; Akira Yamamoto
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-09-27       Impact factor: 4.996

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.