M Wielema1,2, P E Sijens1, H Dijkstra1, G H De Bock2, I G van Bruggen3, J E Siegersma1, E Langius4, R M Pijnappel5, M D Dorrius1,2, M Oudkerk6,7. 1. Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Radiotherapy, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Radiology, Isala Hospital, Zwolle, the Netherlands. 5. Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 6. Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands. 7. Institute of Diagnostic Accuracy, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In breast diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) protocol standardization, it is recently shown that no breast tumor tissue selection (BTTS) method outperformed the others. The purpose of this study is to analyze the feasibility of three fixed-size breast tumor tissue selection (BTTS) methods based on the reproducibility, accuracy and time-measurement in comparison to the largest oval and manual delineation in breast diffusion weighted imaging data. METHODS: This study is performed with a consecutive dataset of 116 breast lesions (98 malignant) of at least 1.0 cm, scanned in accordance with the EUSOBI breast DWI working group recommendations. Reproducibility of the maximum size manual (BTTS1) and of the maximal size round/oval (BTTS2) methods were compared with three smaller fixed-size circular BTTS methods in the middle of each lesion (BTTS3, 0.12 cm3 volume) and at lowest apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) (BTTS4, 0.12 cm3; BTTS5, 0.24 cm3). Mean ADC values, intraclass-correlation-coefficients (ICCs), area under the curve (AUC) and measurement times (sec) of the 5 BTTS methods were assessed by two observers. RESULTS: Excellent inter- and intra-observer agreement was found for any BTTS (with ICC 0.88-0.92 and 0.92-0.94, respectively). Significant difference in ADCmean between any pair of BTTS methods was shown (p = <0.001-0.009), except for BTTS2 vs. BTTS3 for observer 1 (p = 0.10). AUCs were comparable between BTTS methods, with highest AUC for BTTS2 (0.89-0.91) and lowest for BTTS4 (0.76-0.85). However, as an indicator of clinical feasibility, BTTS2-3 showed shortest measurement times (10-15 sec) compared to BTTS1, 4-5 (19-39 sec). CONCLUSION: The performance of fixed-size BTTS methods, as a potential tool for clinical decision making, shows equal AUC but shorter ADC measurement time compared to manual or oval whole lesion measurements. The advantage of a fixed size BTTS method is the excellent reproducibility. A central fixed breast tumor tissue volume of 0.12 cm3 is the most feasible method for use in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVES: In breast diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) protocol standardization, it is recently shown that no breast tumor tissue selection (BTTS) method outperformed the others. The purpose of this study is to analyze the feasibility of three fixed-size breast tumor tissue selection (BTTS) methods based on the reproducibility, accuracy and time-measurement in comparison to the largest oval and manual delineation in breast diffusion weighted imaging data. METHODS: This study is performed with a consecutive dataset of 116 breast lesions (98 malignant) of at least 1.0 cm, scanned in accordance with the EUSOBI breast DWI working group recommendations. Reproducibility of the maximum size manual (BTTS1) and of the maximal size round/oval (BTTS2) methods were compared with three smaller fixed-size circular BTTS methods in the middle of each lesion (BTTS3, 0.12 cm3 volume) and at lowest apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) (BTTS4, 0.12 cm3; BTTS5, 0.24 cm3). Mean ADC values, intraclass-correlation-coefficients (ICCs), area under the curve (AUC) and measurement times (sec) of the 5 BTTS methods were assessed by two observers. RESULTS: Excellent inter- and intra-observer agreement was found for any BTTS (with ICC 0.88-0.92 and 0.92-0.94, respectively). Significant difference in ADCmean between any pair of BTTS methods was shown (p = <0.001-0.009), except for BTTS2 vs. BTTS3 for observer 1 (p = 0.10). AUCs were comparable between BTTS methods, with highest AUC for BTTS2 (0.89-0.91) and lowest for BTTS4 (0.76-0.85). However, as an indicator of clinical feasibility, BTTS2-3 showed shortest measurement times (10-15 sec) compared to BTTS1, 4-5 (19-39 sec). CONCLUSION: The performance of fixed-size BTTS methods, as a potential tool for clinical decision making, shows equal AUC but shorter ADC measurement time compared to manual or oval whole lesion measurements. The advantage of a fixed size BTTS method is the excellent reproducibility. A central fixed breast tumor tissue volume of 0.12 cm3 is the most feasible method for use in clinical practice.
Authors: Katja Pinker; Linda Moy; Elizabeth J Sutton; Ritse M Mann; Michael Weber; Sunitha B Thakur; Maxine S Jochelson; Zsuzsanna Bago-Horvath; Elizabeth A Morris; Pascal At Baltzer; Thomas H Helbich Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Kevin Strobel; Simone Schrading; Nienke L Hansen; Alexandra Barabasch; Christiane K Kuhl Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-09-29 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Hubert Bickel; Katja Pinker; Stephan Polanec; Heinrich Magometschnigg; Georg Wengert; Claudio Spick; Wolfgang Bogner; Zsuzsanna Bago-Horvath; Thomas H Helbich; Pascal Baltzer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Daly Avendano; Maria Adele Marino; Doris Leithner; Sunitha Thakur; Blanca Bernard-Davila; Danny F Martinez; Thomas H Helbich; Elizabeth A Morris; Maxine S Jochelson; Pascal A T Baltzer; Paola Clauser; Panagiotis Kapetas; Katja Pinker Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2019-12-04 Impact factor: 6.466
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