Breast MRI in the era of diffusion weighted imaging: do we still need signal-intensity time curves?
Breast neoplasms
Diagnostic techniques and procedures
Differential diagnosis
Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging
Magnetic resonance imaging
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2020
Jan 2020
Historique:
received:
08
04
2019
accepted:
27
06
2019
revised:
12
06
2019
pubmed:
31
7
2019
medline:
3
3
2020
entrez:
31
7
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging of the initial (IP) and delayed phase (DP) is an integral part of any clinical breast MRI protocol. Furthermore, DWI is increasingly used as an add-on sequence by the breast-imaging community. We investigated whether DWI could be used as a substitute DP. One hundred thirty-two consecutive patients with equivocal or suspicious findings at ultrasound and/or mammography received a full diagnostic breast MRI according to international recommendations. Histopathological verification served as reference standard. We evaluated three sections of the MRI protocol: IP, DP, and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps derived from DWI. Circular ROIs (regions of interest, mean size 5-10 mm One hundred thirty-two patients (age: mean = 57.1 years, range 23-83 years) with 145 lesions were included (malignant/benign 101/44). IP+ (AUC = 0.877) outperformed Curve (AUC = 0.788, p = 0.03). Curve+ was not superior to IP+ (p = 1). DWI could substitute DP. Because DWI is typically used as an add-on to IP and DP, our results might help to abbreviate and to simplify current practice of breast MRI. • DWI provides similar but superior diagnostic information for diagnosis of malignancy in enhancing breast lesions compared to DP. • Adding DP to DWI does not provide incremental information to distinguish benign from malignant lesions. • DWI could substitute DP. As DWI is typically used as an add-on to IP and DP, our findings might help to abbreviate and to simplify current breast MRI practice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31359125
doi: 10.1007/s00330-019-06346-x
pii: 10.1007/s00330-019-06346-x
pmc: PMC6890589
doi:
Substances chimiques
Contrast Media
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
47-56Références
Bennani-Baiti B, Bennani-Baiti N, Baltzer PA (2016) Diagnostic performance of breast magnetic resonance imaging in non-calcified equivocal breast findings: results from a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 11:e0160346. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160346
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160346
pubmed: 27482715
pmcid: 4970763
Bennani-Baiti B, Baltzer PA (2017) MR imaging for diagnosis of malignancy in mammographic microcalcifications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology 283:692–701. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016161106
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2016161106
pubmed: 27788035
Mann RM, Kuhl CK, Kinkel K, Boetes C (2008) Breast MRI: guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging. Eur Radiol 18:1307–1318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-0863-7
doi: 10.1007/s00330-008-0863-7
pubmed: 18389253
pmcid: 2441490
Dietzel M, Baltzer PAT (2018) How to use the Kaiser score as a clinical decision rule for diagnosis in multiparametric breast MRI: a pictorial essay. Insights Imaging 9:325–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-018-0611-8
doi: 10.1007/s13244-018-0611-8
pubmed: 29616496
pmcid: 5990997
Morris EA, Comstock C, Lee C et al (2013) ACR BI-RADS® magnetic resonance imaging. In: ACR BI-RADS® atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system, 5th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA
Rogers E (1983) Attributes of innovations and their rate of adoption. In: Diffusion of innovations, 3rd edn. The Free Press, New York, pp 210–240
Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S et al (1999) Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 211:101–110
doi: 10.1148/radiology.211.1.r99ap38101
Liu C, Wang K, Chan Q et al (2016) Intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging for breast lesions: comparison and correlation with pharmacokinetic evaluation from dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Eur Radiol 26:3888–3898. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4241-6
doi: 10.1007/s00330-016-4241-6
pubmed: 26863896
Surov A, Meyer HJ, Wienke A (2017) Correlation between apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and cellularity is different in several tumors: a meta-analysis. Oncotarget 8:59492–59499. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.17752
doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.17752
pubmed: 28938652
pmcid: 5601748
Bailey C, Siow B, Panagiotaki E et al (2017) Microstructural models for diffusion MRI in breast cancer and surrounding stroma: an ex vivo study. NMR Biomed 30. https://doi.org/10.1002/nbm.3679
Parsian S, Giannakopoulos NV, Rahbar H, Rendi MH, Chai X, Partridge SC (2016) Diffusion-weighted imaging reflects variable cellularity and stromal density present in breast fibroadenomas. Clin Imaging 40:1047–1054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2016.06.002
Baltzer A, Dietzel M, Kaiser CG, Baltzer PA (2016) Combined reading of contrast enhanced and diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging by using a simple sum score. Eur Radiol 26:884–891. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3886-x
doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-3886-x
pubmed: 26115653
Pinker K, Bickel H, Helbich TH et al (2013) Combined contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance and diffusion-weighted imaging reading adapted to the “Breast imaging reporting and data system” for multiparametric 3-T imaging of breast lesions. Eur Radiol 23:1791–1802. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2771-8
doi: 10.1007/s00330-013-2771-8
pubmed: 23504036
Partridge SC, Nissan N, Rahbar H, Kitsch AE, Sigmund EE (2017) Diffusion-weighted breast MRI: clinical applications and emerging techniques. J Magn Reson Imaging 45:337–355. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25479
Bickel H, Pinker K, Polanec S et al (2017) Diffusion-weighted imaging of breast lesions: region-of-interest placement and different ADC parameters influence apparent diffusion coefficient values. Eur Radiol 27:1883–1892. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4564-3
doi: 10.1007/s00330-016-4564-3
pubmed: 27578047
Baxter GC, Graves MJ, Gilbert FJ, Patterson AJ (2019) A meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of diffusion MRI for breast lesion characterization. Radiology 182510. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019182510
Clauser P, Mann R, Athanasiou A et al (2018) A survey by the European Society of Breast Imaging on the utilisation of breast MRI in clinical practice. Eur Radiol 28:1909–1918. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5121-4
doi: 10.1007/s00330-017-5121-4
pubmed: 29168005
Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft e.V. (DKG) (2012) Interdisziplinäre S3-Leitlinie für die Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms, 3rd edn. Zuckschwerdt Verlag, München
Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B et al (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer 46:1296–1316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2010.02.015
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.02.015
pubmed: 20304629
Shi RY, Yao QY, Wu LM, Xu JR (2018) Breast lesions: diagnosis using diffusion weighted imaging at 1.5 T and 3.0 T—systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Breast Cancer 18:e305–e320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2017.06.011
Dorrius MD, Dijkstra H, Oudkerk M, Sijens PE (2014) Effect of b value and pre-admission of contrast on diagnostic accuracy of 1.5-T breast DWI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 24:2835–2847. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3338-z
doi: 10.1007/s00330-014-3338-z
pubmed: 25103535
Zeilinger MG, Lell M, Baltzer PA, Dörfler A, Uder M, Dietzel M (2017) Impact of post-processing methods on apparent diffusion coefficient values. Eur Radiol 27:946–955. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4403-6
Baltzer PAT, Freiberg C, Beger S et al (2009) Clinical MR-mammography: are computer-assisted methods superior to visual or manual measurements for curve type analysis? A systematic approach. Acad Radiol 16:1070–1076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2009.03.017
doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2009.03.017
pubmed: 19523854
Obuchowski NA, Mazzone PJ, Dachman AH (2010) Bias, underestimation of risk, and loss of statistical power in patient-level analyses of lesion detection. Eur Radiol 20:584–594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1590-4
doi: 10.1007/s00330-009-1590-4
pubmed: 19763582
Evans J (1995) Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences, 1st edn. Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove
Sardanelli F, Di Leo G (2009) Biostatistics for radiologists: planning, performing, and writing a radiologic study, 1st edn. Springer, Milan
doi: 10.1007/978-88-470-1133-5
DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL (1988) Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44:837–845
doi: 10.2307/2531595
Tofts PS, Brix G, Buckley DL et al (1999) Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging 10:223–232
doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1522-2586(199909)10:3<223::AID-JMRI2>3.0.CO;2-S
Ikeda O, Nishimura R, Miyayama H et al (2004) Evaluation of tumor angiogenesis using dynamic enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: comparison of plasma vascular endothelial growth factor, hemodynamic, and pharmacokinetic parameters. Acta Radiol 45:446–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/02841850410005372
doi: 10.1080/02841850410005372
pubmed: 15323399
Tofts PS, Berkowitz B, Schnall MD (1995) Quantitative analysis of dynamic Gd-DTPA enhancement in breast tumors using a permeability model. Magn Reson Med 33:564–568
doi: 10.1002/mrm.1910330416
Zwick S, Brix G, Tofts PS et al (2010) Simulation-based comparison of two approaches frequently used for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Eur Radiol 20:432–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1556-6
doi: 10.1007/s00330-009-1556-6
pubmed: 19727758
Clauser P, Dietzel M, Weber M, Kaiser CG, Baltzer PA (2019) Motion artifacts, lesion type, and parenchymal enhancement in breast MRI: what does really influence diagnostic accuracy? Acta Radiol 60:19–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185118770918
Baltzer PAT, Dietzel M, Kaiser WA (2013) A simple and robust classification tree for differentiation between benign and malignant lesions in MR-mammography. Eur Radiol 23:2051–2060. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2804-3
doi: 10.1007/s00330-013-2804-3
pubmed: 23579418
Dietzel M, Kaiser C, Pinker K et al (2017) Automated semi-quantitative analysis of breast MRI: potential imaging biomarker for the prediction of tissue response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Care (Basel) 12:231–236. https://doi.org/10.1159/000480226
doi: 10.1159/000480226