New parameters of ultrafast dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI using compressed sensing.
breast diseases
compressed sensing
kinetic parameter
magnetic resonance imaging
ultrafast imaging
Journal
Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI
ISSN: 1522-2586
Titre abrégé: J Magn Reson Imaging
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9105850
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2020
01 2020
Historique:
received:
21
03
2019
accepted:
22
05
2019
pubmed:
20
6
2019
medline:
14
4
2021
entrez:
20
6
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Ultrafast dynamic contrast-enhanced (UF-DCE) breast MRI is considered a promising method of accelerated breast MRI. However, the value of new kinetic parameters derived from UF-DCE need clinical evaluation. To evaluate the diagnostic performance of the maximum slope (MS), time to enhancement (TTE), and time interval between arterial and venous visualization (AVI) derived from UF-DCE MRI using compressed sensing (CS). Retrospective. Seventy-five patients with histologically proven breast lesions. The total number of analyzed lesions was 90 (61 malignant and 29 benign). 3T MRI with UF-DCE MRI based on the 3D gradient-echo volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE) sequence using incoherent k-space sampling combined with a CS reconstruction followed by conventional DCE MRI. The diagnostic performance of the MS, TTE, AVI, and conventional kinetic analysis was analyzed and compared with histology. Wilcoxon rank sum test, receiver operating characteristic analysis. The MS was larger and the TTE and AVI were smaller for malignant lesions compared with benign lesions: MS: 29.3%/s and 18.4%/s (P < 0.001), TTE: 7.0 and 12.0 seconds (P < 0.001), AVI: 2.7 and 4.4 frames (P = 0.006) for malignant and benign lesions. The discriminating power of the MS (area under the curve [AUC], 0.76) was slightly better than that of conventional kinetic analysis (AUC, 0.69) and comparable to that of the TTE and AVI (AUC, 0.78 and 0.76 for TTE and AVI, respectively). Invasive lobular carcinoma had smaller MS (21.8%/s) among malignant lesions (29.3%/s). The MS, TTE, and AVI can be used to evaluate breast lesions with clinical performance equivalent to that of conventional kinetic analysis. These parameters vary among histologies. 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;51:164-174.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Ultrafast dynamic contrast-enhanced (UF-DCE) breast MRI is considered a promising method of accelerated breast MRI. However, the value of new kinetic parameters derived from UF-DCE need clinical evaluation.
PURPOSE
To evaluate the diagnostic performance of the maximum slope (MS), time to enhancement (TTE), and time interval between arterial and venous visualization (AVI) derived from UF-DCE MRI using compressed sensing (CS).
STUDY TYPE
Retrospective.
POPULATION
Seventy-five patients with histologically proven breast lesions. The total number of analyzed lesions was 90 (61 malignant and 29 benign).
FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE
3T MRI with UF-DCE MRI based on the 3D gradient-echo volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE) sequence using incoherent k-space sampling combined with a CS reconstruction followed by conventional DCE MRI.
ASSESSMENT
The diagnostic performance of the MS, TTE, AVI, and conventional kinetic analysis was analyzed and compared with histology.
STATISTICAL TESTS
Wilcoxon rank sum test, receiver operating characteristic analysis.
RESULTS
The MS was larger and the TTE and AVI were smaller for malignant lesions compared with benign lesions: MS: 29.3%/s and 18.4%/s (P < 0.001), TTE: 7.0 and 12.0 seconds (P < 0.001), AVI: 2.7 and 4.4 frames (P = 0.006) for malignant and benign lesions. The discriminating power of the MS (area under the curve [AUC], 0.76) was slightly better than that of conventional kinetic analysis (AUC, 0.69) and comparable to that of the TTE and AVI (AUC, 0.78 and 0.76 for TTE and AVI, respectively). Invasive lobular carcinoma had smaller MS (21.8%/s) among malignant lesions (29.3%/s).
DATA CONCLUSION
The MS, TTE, and AVI can be used to evaluate breast lesions with clinical performance equivalent to that of conventional kinetic analysis. These parameters vary among histologies.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;51:164-174.
Substances chimiques
Contrast Media
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
164-174Informations de copyright
© 2019 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.
Références
D'Orsi CJ, Mendelson EB, Morris EA. ACR BI-RADS Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2013
Kuhl CK. The changing world of breast cancer: A radiologist's perspective. Invest Radiol 2015;50:615-628.
Sung JS, Stamler S, Brooks J, et al. Breast cancers detected at screening MR imaging and mammography in patients at high risk: Method of detection reflects tumor histopathologic results. Radiology 2016;280:716-722.
Mulder RL, Kremer LCM, Hudson MM, et al. Recommendations for breast cancer surveillance for female survivors of childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer given chest radiation: A report from the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group. Lancet Oncol 2013;14:e621-e629.
Mann RM, Kuhl CK, Moy L. Contrast-enhanced MRI for breast cancer screening. J Magn Reson Imaging 2019 [Epub ahead of print].
Kinkel K, Helbich TH, Esseman LJ, et al. Dynamic high-spatial-resolution MR imaging of suspicious breast lesions: Diagnostic criteria and interobserver variability. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;175:35-43.
Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S, et al. Dynamic breast MR imaging: Are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 1999;211:101-110.
Kuhl CK, Strobel K, Bieling H, Leutner C, Schilid HH, Schrading S. Supplemental breast MR imaging screening of women with average risk of breast cancer. Radiology 2017;283:361-370.
Chhor CM, Mercado CL. Abbreviated MRI protocols: Wave of the future for breast cancer screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2017;208:284-289.
Mann RM, Mus RD, van Zelst J, et al. A novel approach to contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging for screening: High-resolution ultrafast dynamic imaging. Invest Radiol 2014;49:579-585.
Hargreaves BA, Saranathan M, Sung K, Daniel BL. Accelerated breast MRI with compressed sensing. Eur J Radiol 2012;81:S54-S55.
Mus RD, Borelli C, Bult P, et al. Time to enhancement derived from ultrafast breast MRI as a novel parameter to discriminate benign from malignant breast lesions. Eur J Radiol 2017;89:90-96.
Onishi N, Kataoka M, Kanao S, et al. Ultrafast dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast using compressed sensing: Breast cancer diagnosis based on separate visualization of breast arteries and veins. J Magn Reson Imaging 2018;47:97-104.
Goto M, Sakai K, Yokota H, et al. Diagnostic performance of initial enhancement analysis using ultra-fast dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for breast lesions. Eur Radiol 2018;1-11.
Vreemann S, Rodriguez-Ruiz A, Nickel D, et al. Compressed sensing for breast MRI: Resolving the trade-off between spatial and temporal resolution. Invest Radiol 2017;52:574-582.
Huang W, Tudorica LA, Li X, et al. Discrimination of benign and malignant breast lesions by using shutter-speed dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2011;261:394-403.
Wang H, Miao Y, Zhou K, et al. Feasibility of high temporal resolution breast DCE-MRI using compressed sensing theory. Med Phys 2010;37:4971-4981.
Tudorica LA, Oh KY, Roy N, et al. A feasible high spatiotemporal resolution breast DCE-MRI protocol for clinical settings. Magn Reson Imaging 2012;30:1257-1267.
van Zelst JCM, Vreemann S, Wittt HJ, et al. Multireader study on the diagnostic accuracy of ultrafast breast magnetic resonance imaging for breast cancer screening. Invest Radiol 2018;53:579-586.
Platel B, Mus R, Welte T, Karssemeijer N, Mann R. Automated characterization of breast lesions imaged with an ultrafast DCE-MR protocol. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2014;33:225-232.
Benkert T, Block KT, Heller S, et al. Comprehensive dynamic contrast-enhanced 3D magnetic resonance imaging of the breast with fat/water separation and high spatiotemporal resolution using radial sampling, compressed sensing, and parallel imaging. Invest Radiol 2017;52:583-589.
Sagawa H, Kataoka M, Kanao S, et al. Impact of the number of iterations in compressed sensing reconstruction on ultrafast dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging. Magn Reson Med Sci 2018 [Epub ahead of print].
Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 2016;15:155-163.
Yin J, Yang J, Han L, Guo Q, Zhang W. Quantitative discrimination between invasive ductal carcinomas and benign lesions based on semi-automatic analysis of time intensity curves from breast dynamic contrast enhanced MRI. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2015;34:1.
Sardanelli F. Vessel analysis on contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast: Global or local vascularity? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;195:1246-1249.
Han M, Kim TH, Kang DK, Kim KS, Yim H. Prognostic role of MRI enhancement features in patients with breast cancer: Value of adjacent vessel sign and increased ipsilateral whole-breast vascularity. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;199:921-928.
Wu C, Pineda F, Hormuth DA 2nd, Karczmar GS, Yankeelov TE. Quantitative analysis of vascular properties derived from ultrafast DCE-MRI to discriminate malignant and benign breast tumors. Magn Reson Med 2019;81:2147-2160.
Mori N, Abe H, Mugikura S, et al. Ultrafast dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI: Kinetic curve assessment using empirical mathematical model validated with histological microvessel density. Acad Radiol 2018 [Epub ahead of print].
Lakhani S, Ellis I, Schnitt S, Tan PH, van de Vijver MJ. WHO classification of tumours of the breast, 4th ed. Lyon, France: IARC Press; 2012.
Wei S. Papillary lesions of the breast: An update. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2016;140:628-643.
Tomobach B, Heindel W. Value of 1.0-M gadolinium chelates: Review of preclinical and clinical data on gadobutrol. Eur Radiol 2002;12:1550-1556.