Skip to main content
Erschienen in: European Radiology 7/2016

07.10.2015 | Breast

Is there a systematic bias of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements of the breast if measured on different workstations? An inter- and intra-reader agreement study

verfasst von: Paola Clauser, Magda Marcon, Marta Maieron, Chiara Zuiani, Massimo Bazzocchi, Pascal A. T. Baltzer

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 7/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the influence of post-processing systems, intra- and inter-reader agreement on the variability of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements in breast lesions.

Methods

Forty-one patients with 41 biopsy-proven breast lesions gave their informed consent and were included in this prospective IRB-approved study. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations were performed at 1.5 T using an EPI-DWI sequence, with b-values of 0 and 1000 s/mm2. Two radiologists (R1, R2) reviewed the images in separate sessions and measured the ADC for lesion, using MRI-workstation (S-WS), PACS-workstation (P-WS) and a commercial DICOM viewer (O-SW). Agreement was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland–Altman plots and coefficient of variation (CV).

Results

Thirty-one malignant, two high-risk and eight benign mass-like lesions were analysed. Intra-reader agreement was almost perfect (ICC-R1 = 0.974; ICC-R2 = 0.990) while inter-reader agreement was substantial (ICC from 0.615 to 0.682). Bland–Altman plots revealed a significant bias in ADC values measured between O-SW and S-WS (P = 0.025), no further systematic differences were identified. CV varied from 6.8 % to 7.9 %.

Conclusion

Post-processing systems may have a significant, although minor, impact on ADC measurements in breast lesions. While intra-reader agreement is high, the main source of ADC variability seems to be caused by inter-reader variation.

Key points

ADC provides quantitative information on breast lesions independent from the system used.
ADC measurement using different workstations and software systems is generally reliable.
Systematic, but minor, differences may occur between different post-processing systems.
Inter-reader agreement of ADC measurements exceeded intra-reader agreement.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Baltzer PAT, Benndorf M, Dietzel M et al (2010) Sensitivity and specificity of unenhanced MR mammography (DWI combined with T2-weighted TSE imaging, ueMRM) for the differentiation of mass lesions. Eur Radiol 20:1101–1110CrossRefPubMed Baltzer PAT, Benndorf M, Dietzel M et al (2010) Sensitivity and specificity of unenhanced MR mammography (DWI combined with T2-weighted TSE imaging, ueMRM) for the differentiation of mass lesions. Eur Radiol 20:1101–1110CrossRefPubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Partridge SC, McDonald ES (2013) Diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: protocol optimization, interpretation, and clinical applications. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 21:601–624CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Partridge SC, McDonald ES (2013) Diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: protocol optimization, interpretation, and clinical applications. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 21:601–624CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 24:2835–2847CrossRefPubMed 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 24:2835–2847CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Wu L-M, Hu J-N, Gu H-Y et al (2012) Can diffusion-weighted MR imaging and contrast-enhanced MR imaging precisely evaluate and predict pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer? Breast Cancer Res Treat 135:17–28CrossRefPubMed Wu L-M, Hu J-N, Gu H-Y et al (2012) Can diffusion-weighted MR imaging and contrast-enhanced MR imaging precisely evaluate and predict pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer? Breast Cancer Res Treat 135:17–28CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Woodhams R, Ramadan S, Stanwell P et al (2011) Diffusion-weighted imaging of the breast: principles and clinical applications. Radiogr Rev Publ Radiol Soc N Am Inc 31:1059–1084 Woodhams R, Ramadan S, Stanwell P et al (2011) Diffusion-weighted imaging of the breast: principles and clinical applications. Radiogr Rev Publ Radiol Soc N Am Inc 31:1059–1084
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Sasaki M, Yamada K, Watanabe Y et al (2008) Variability in absolute apparent diffusion coefficient values across different platforms may be substantial: a multivendor, multi-institutional comparison study. Radiology 249:624–630CrossRefPubMed Sasaki M, Yamada K, Watanabe Y et al (2008) Variability in absolute apparent diffusion coefficient values across different platforms may be substantial: a multivendor, multi-institutional comparison study. Radiology 249:624–630CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefPubMed Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat 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 23:1791–1802CrossRefPubMed 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 23:1791–1802CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat El Kady RM, Choudhary AK, Tappouni R (2011) Accuracy of apparent diffusion coefficient value measurement on PACS workstation: a comparative analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:W280–284CrossRefPubMed El Kady RM, Choudhary AK, Tappouni R (2011) Accuracy of apparent diffusion coefficient value measurement on PACS workstation: a comparative analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:W280–284CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Donati OF, Chong D, Nanz D et al (2014) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of upper abdominal organs: field strength and intervendor variability of apparent diffusion coefficients. Radiology 270:454–463CrossRefPubMed Donati OF, Chong D, Nanz D et al (2014) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of upper abdominal organs: field strength and intervendor variability of apparent diffusion coefficients. Radiology 270:454–463CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Ye X-H, Gao J-Y, Yang Z-H, Liu Y (2014) Apparent diffusion coefficient reproducibility of the pancreas measured at different MR scanners using diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging JMRI 40:1375–1381CrossRefPubMed Ye X-H, Gao J-Y, Yang Z-H, Liu Y (2014) Apparent diffusion coefficient reproducibility of the pancreas measured at different MR scanners using diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging JMRI 40:1375–1381CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Inoue C, Fujii S, Kaneda S et al (2014) Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurement in endometrial carcinoma: effect of region of interest methods on ADC values. J Magn Reson Imaging JMRI 40:157–161CrossRefPubMed Inoue C, Fujii S, Kaneda S et al (2014) Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurement in endometrial carcinoma: effect of region of interest methods on ADC values. J Magn Reson Imaging JMRI 40:157–161CrossRefPubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Lambregts DMJ, Beets GL, Maas M et al (2011) Tumour ADC measurements in rectal cancer: effect of ROI methods on ADC values and interobserver variability. Eur Radiol 21:2567–2574CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Lambregts DMJ, Beets GL, Maas M et al (2011) Tumour ADC measurements in rectal cancer: effect of ROI methods on ADC values and interobserver variability. Eur Radiol 21:2567–2574CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Bilgili Y, Unal B (2004) Effect of region of interest on interobserver variance in apparent diffusion coefficient measures. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 25:108–111PubMed Bilgili Y, Unal B (2004) Effect of region of interest on interobserver variance in apparent diffusion coefficient measures. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 25:108–111PubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Giannotti E, Waugh S, Priba L et al (2015) Assessment and quantification of sources of variability in breast apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements at diffusion weighted imaging. Eur J Radiol. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.05.032 PubMed Giannotti E, Waugh S, Priba L et al (2015) Assessment and quantification of sources of variability in breast apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements at diffusion weighted imaging. Eur J Radiol. doi:10.​1016/​j.​ejrad.​2015.​05.​032 PubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Molinari C, Clauser P, Girometti R et al. (2015) MR mammography using diffusion-weighted imaging in evaluating breast cancer: a correlation with proliferation index. Radiol Med. 120(10):911–918 Molinari C, Clauser P, Girometti R et al. (2015) MR mammography using diffusion-weighted imaging in evaluating breast cancer: a correlation with proliferation index. Radiol Med. 120(10):911–918
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Partridge SC, Mullins CD, Kurland BF et al (2010) Apparent diffusion coefficient values for discriminating benign and malignant breast MRI lesions: effects of lesion type and size. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:1664–1673CrossRefPubMed Partridge SC, Mullins CD, Kurland BF et al (2010) Apparent diffusion coefficient values for discriminating benign and malignant breast MRI lesions: effects of lesion type and size. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:1664–1673CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Is there a systematic bias of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements of the breast if measured on different workstations? An inter- and intra-reader agreement study
verfasst von
Paola Clauser
Magda Marcon
Marta Maieron
Chiara Zuiani
Massimo Bazzocchi
Pascal A. T. Baltzer
Publikationsdatum
07.10.2015
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
European Radiology / Ausgabe 7/2016
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-4051-2

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 7/2016

European Radiology 7/2016 Zur Ausgabe

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.