nach oben

Erschienen in:

30.08.2016 | Breast

Diffusion-weighted imaging of breast lesions: Region-of-interest placement and different ADC parameters influence apparent diffusion coefficient values

verfasst von: Hubert Bickel, Katja Pinker, Stephan Polanec, Heinrich Magometschnigg, Georg Wengert, Claudio Spick, Wolfgang Bogner, Zsuzsanna Bago-Horvath, Thomas H. Helbich, Pascal Baltzer

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 5/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate the influence of region-of-interest (ROI) placement and different apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) parameters on ADC values, diagnostic performance, reproducibility and measurement time in breast tumours.

Methods

In this IRB-approved, retrospective study, 149 histopathologically proven breast tumours (109 malignant, 40 benign) in 147 women (mean age 53.2) were investigated. Three radiologists independently measured minimum, mean and maximum ADC, each using three ROI placement approaches:1 – small 2D-ROI, 2 – large 2D-ROI and 3 – 3D-ROI covering the whole lesion. One reader performed all measurements twice. Median ADC values, diagnostic performance, reproducibility, and measurement time were calculated and compared between all combinations of ROI placement approaches and ADC parameters.

Results

Median ADC values differed significantly between the ROI placement approaches (p < .001). Minimum ADC showed the best diagnostic performance (AUC .928–.956), followed by mean ADC obtained from 2D ROIs (.926–.94). Minimum and mean ADC showed high intra- (ICC .85–.94) and inter-reader reproducibility (ICC .74–.94). Median measurement time was significantly shorter for the 2D ROIs (p < .001).

Conclusions

ROI placement significantly influences ADC values measured in breast tumours. Minimum and mean ADC acquired from 2D-ROIs are useful for the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions, and are highly reproducible, with rapid measurement.

Key Points

• Region of interest placement significantly influences apparent diffusion coefficient of breast tumours.

• Minimum and mean apparent diffusion coefficient perform best and are reproducible.

• 2D regions of interest perform best and provide rapid measurement times.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Bogner W, Pinker K, Zaric O et al (2015) Bilateral diffusion-weighted MR imaging of breast tumors with submillimeter resolution using readout-segmented echo-planar imaging at 7 T. Radiology 274:74–84CrossRefPubMed

Bickel H, Pinker-Domenig K, Bogner W et al (2015) Quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient as a noninvasive imaging biomarker for the differentiation of invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ. Invest Radiol 50:95–100CrossRefPubMed

Woodhams R, Matsunaga K, Kan S et al (2005) ADC mapping of benign and malignant breast tumors. Magn Reson Med Sci 4:35–42CrossRefPubMed

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

Spick C, Pinker-Domenig K, Rudas M, Helbich TH, Baltzer PA (2014) MRI-only lesions: application of diffusion-weighted imaging obviates unnecessary MR-guided breast biopsies. Eur Radiol 24:1204–1210CrossRefPubMed

Sun K, Chai W, Fu C et al (2015) Diffusion-weighted imaging-guided MR spectroscopy in breast lesions using readout-segmented echo-planar imaging. Eur Radiol. doi:10.1007/s00330-015-4000-0

Woodhams R, Matsunaga K, Iwabuchi K et al (2005) Diffusion-weighted imaging of malignant breast tumors: the usefulness of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value and ADC map for the detection of malignant breast tumors and evaluation of cancer extension. J Comput Assist Tomogr 29:644–649CrossRefPubMed

Baltzer PA, Schafer A, Dietzel M et al (2011) Diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: a pilot study. Eur Radiol 21:1–10CrossRefPubMed

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

10.

Lourenco AP, Donegan L, Khalil H, Mainiero MB (2014) Improving outcomes of screening breast MRI with practice evolution: initial clinical experience with 3T compared to 1.5T. J Magn Reson Imaging 39:535–539CrossRefPubMed

11.

Gruber S, Minarikova L, Pinker K et al (2016) Diffusion-weighted imaging of breast tumours at 3 Tesla and 7 Tesla: a comparison. Eur Radiol 26:1466–1473CrossRefPubMed

12.

Bogner W, Gruber S, Pinker K et al (2009) Diffusion-weighted MR for differentiation of breast lesions at 3.0 T: how does selection of diffusion protocols affect diagnosis? Radiology 253:341–351CrossRefPubMed

13.

Barentsz MW, Taviani V, Chang JM et al (2015) Assessment of tumor morphology on diffusion-weighted (DWI) breast MRI: diagnostic value of reduced field of view DWI. J Magn Reson Imaging 42:1656–1665CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Clauser P, Marcon M, Maieron M, Zuiani C, Bazzocchi M, Baltzer PA (2015) 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. Eur Radiol. doi:10.1007/s00330-015-4051-2

15.

Lambregts DM, 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

16.

Hatakenaka M, Soeda H, Yabuuchi H et al (2008) Apparent diffusion coefficients of breast tumors: clinical application. Magn Reson Med Sci 7:23–29CrossRefPubMed

17.

Choi SY, Chang YW, Park HJ, Kim HJ, Hong SS, Seo DY (2012) Correlation of the apparent diffusion coefficiency values on diffusion-weighted imaging with prognostic factors for breast cancer. Br J Radiol 85:474–479CrossRef

18.

Iacconi C, Giannelli M, Marini C et al (2010) The role of mean diffusivity (MD) as a predictive index of the response to chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer: a preliminary study. Eur Radiol 20:303–308CrossRefPubMed

19.

Mori N, Ota H, Mugikura S et al (2013) Detection of invasive components in cases of breast ductal carcinoma in situ on biopsy by using apparent diffusion coefficient MR parameters. Eur Radiol 23:2705–2712CrossRefPubMed

20.

Hirano M, Satake H, Ishigaki S, Ikeda M, Kawai H, Naganawa S (2012) Diffusion-weighted imaging of breast masses: comparison of diagnostic performance using various apparent diffusion coefficient parameters. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198:717–722CrossRefPubMed

21.

Partridge SC, Rahbar H, Murthy R et al (2011) Improved diagnostic accuracy of breast MRI through combined apparent diffusion coefficients and dynamic contrast-enhanced kinetics. Magn Reson Med 65:1759–1767CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Pinker K, Bogner W, Baltzer P et al (2014) Improved diagnostic accuracy with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the breast using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging, and 3-dimensional proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging. Invest Radiol 49:421–430CrossRefPubMed

23.

Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B et al (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer 46:1296–1316CrossRefPubMed

24.

Rosset A, Spadola L, Pysher L, Ratib O (2006) Informatics in radiology (infoRAD): navigating the fifth dimension: innovative interface for multidimensional multimodality image navigation. Radiographics 26:299–308CrossRefPubMed

25.

Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Tornberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L (2008) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition--summary document. Ann Oncol 19:614–622CrossRefPubMed

26.

Vergara IA, Norambuena T, Ferrada E, Slater AW, Melo F (2008) StAR: a simple tool for the statistical comparison of ROC curves. BMC Bioinform 9:265CrossRef

27.

Arponent O, Sudah M, Masarwah A (2015) Diffusion-weighted imaging in 3.0 Tesla breast MRI: diagnostic performance and tumor characterization using small subregions vs. whole tumor regions of interest. PLoS One 10:e0138702CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Nogueira L, Brandao S, Matos E et al (2015) Region of interest demarcation for quantification of the apparent diffusion coefficient in breast lesions and its interobserver variability. Diagn Interv Radiol 21:123–127CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Min Q, Shao K, Zhai L et al (2015) Differential diagnosis of benign and malignant breast masses using diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. World J Surg Oncol 13:32CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Guo Y, Cai YQ, Cai ZL et al (2002) Differentiation of clinically benign and malignant breast lesions using diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 16:172–178CrossRefPubMed

31.

Kul S, Eyuboglu I, Cansu A, Alhan E (2014) Diagnostic efficacy of the diffusion weighted imaging in the characterization of different types of breast lesions. J Magn Reson Imaging 40:1158–1164CrossRefPubMed

32.

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

33.

Iima M, Le Bihan D, Okumura R et al (2011) Apparent diffusion coefficient as an MR imaging biomarker of low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ: a pilot study. Radiology 260:364–372CrossRefPubMed

34.

(2010) European Society of Radiology. white paper on imaging biomarkers. Insights Imag 1:42–45

35.

Bogner W, Pinker-Domenig K, Bickel H et al (2012) Readout-segmented echo-planar imaging improves the diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted MR breast examinations at 3.0 T. Radiology 263:64–76CrossRefPubMed

36.

Dijkstra H, Dorrius MD, Wielema M et al (2016) Semi-automated quantitative intravoxel incoherent motion analysis and its implementation in breast diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 43:1122–1131CrossRefPubMed

37.

Giannotti E, Waugh S, Priba L, Davis Z, Crowe E, Vinnicombe S (2015) Assessment and quantification of sources of variability in breast apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements at diffusion weighted imaging. Eur J Radiol 84:1729–1736CrossRefPubMed

38.

Pereira FP, Martins G, Figueiredo E et al (2009) Assessment of breast lesions with diffusion-weighted MRI: comparing the use of different b values. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:1030–1035CrossRefPubMed

39.

Baltzer PAT, Renz DM, Herrmann KH et al (2009) Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in MR mammography (MRM): clinical comparison of echo planar imaging (EPI) and half-Fourier single-shot turbo spin echo (HASTE) diffusion techniques. Eur Radiol 19:1612–1620CrossRefPubMed

40.

Lo GG, Ai V, Chan JK et al (2009) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of breast lesions: first experiences at 3 T. J Comput Assist Tomogr 33:63–69CrossRefPubMed

41.

Kamitani T, Matsuo Y, Yabuuchi H et al (2013) Correlations between apparent diffusion coefficient values and prognostic factors of breast cancer. Magn Reson Med Sci 12:193–199CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Diffusion-weighted imaging of breast lesions: Region-of-interest placement and different ADC parameters influence apparent diffusion coefficient values
verfasst von: Hubert Bickel
Katja Pinker
Stephan Polanec
Heinrich Magometschnigg
Georg Wengert
Claudio Spick
Wolfgang Bogner
Zsuzsanna Bago-Horvath
Thomas H. Helbich
Pascal Baltzer
Publikationsdatum: 30.08.2016
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Radiology / Ausgabe 5/2017
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4564-3

Update Radiologie

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

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Diffusion-weighted imaging of breast lesions: Region-of-interest placement and different ADC parameters influence apparent diffusion coefficient values