Qualitative and quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging of the breast at 3T - A useful adjunct to contrast-enhanced MRI in characterization of breast lesions.

Richa Bansal, Viral Shah, Bharat Aggarwal
Author Information
  1. Richa Bansal: Department of Radiodiagnosis, Max Super Speciality Hospital, New Delhi, India.
  2. Viral Shah: Department of Radiodiagnosis, Max Super Speciality Hospital, New Delhi, India.
  3. Bharat Aggarwal: Department of Radiodiagnosis, Max Super Speciality Hospital, New Delhi, India.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To distinguish between benign and malignant breast lesions on the basis of their signal intensity on diffusion-weighted imaging and their apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values at 3 T MRI, along with histopathological correlation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 500 patients who underwent 3 T MRI between August 2011 and May 2013 was done. Of these, 226 patients with 232 lesions that were proved by histopathology were included in the study. ADC values were calculated at b values of 0, 1000, and 1500 s/mm(2) after identification on contrast-enhanced images and appropriate ROI(Region of interest) placement. ADC value and histopathology correlation was analyzed.
RESULTS: Out of 232 lesions, 168 lesions were histologically malignant and 64 were histologically benign. With an ADC cut-off value of 1.1 ×10(-3) mm(2)/s for malignant lesions, a sensitivity of 92.80% and specificity of 80.23% was obtained. Out of 12/232 false-negative lesions, 6 were mucinous carcinoma in which a high ADC value of 1.8-1.9 ×10(-3) mm(2)/s was obtained. Purely DCIS (Ductal carcinoma in situ) lesions presenting as non-mass-like enhancement had a high ADC value of 1.2-1.5 ×10(-3) mm(2)/s, thereby reducing specificity.
CONCLUSION: Diffusion-weighted Imaging and quantitative assessment by ADC values may act as an effective parameter in increasing the diagnostic accuracy and specificity of contrast-enhanced breast MRI in characterization of breast lesions.

Keywords

References

  1. Eur J Radiol. 2003 Mar;45(3):169-84 [PMID: 12595101]
  2. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2010;9(4):217-25 [PMID: 21187691]
  3. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006 Aug;24(2):319-24 [PMID: 16786565]
  4. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002 Jun;15(6):693-704 [PMID: 12112520]
  5. Eur Radiol. 2010 May;20(5):1101-10 [PMID: 19936758]
  6. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010 Jun;194(6):1664-73 [PMID: 20489111]
  7. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009 Oct;193(4):1030-5 [PMID: 19770326]
  8. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 Jun;188(6):1622-35 [PMID: 17515386]
  9. Radiology. 2010 Jul;256(1):64-73 [PMID: 20574085]
  10. Radiographics. 2011 Jul-Aug;31(4):1059-84 [PMID: 21768239]
  11. NMR Biomed. 2010 May;23(4):399-405 [PMID: 20131313]
  12. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002 Aug;16(2):172-8 [PMID: 12203765]
  13. Acad Radiol. 2010 Apr;17(4):456-63 [PMID: 20207316]
  14. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2005;4(1):35-42 [PMID: 16127252]
  15. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008 Nov;28(5):1157-65 [PMID: 18972357]
  16. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2013 May;21(2):321-36 [PMID: 23642556]
  17. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2005 Aug;92(3):231-8 [PMID: 16155794]
  18. Cancer Imaging. 2011 Jun 28;11:76-90 [PMID: 21771711]
  19. Radiology. 1996 Sep;200(3):639-49 [PMID: 8756909]
  20. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009 Jul;193(1):260-6 [PMID: 19542422]
  21. Radiat Med. 2008 Jan;26(1):15-20 [PMID: 18236129]
  22. Radiology. 1994 Jun;191(3):625-31 [PMID: 8184038]
  23. Korean J Radiol. 2007 Sep-Oct;8(5):390-6 [PMID: 17923781]
  24. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2005 Sep-Oct;29(5):644-9 [PMID: 16163035]
  25. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2008;7(1):23-9 [PMID: 18460845]
  26. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2009 Jan-Feb;33(1):63-9 [PMID: 19188787]
  27. Eur Radiol. 2002 Jul;12(7):1711-9 [PMID: 12111062]
  28. World J Surg Oncol. 2015 Feb 07;13:32 [PMID: 25889380]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0lesionsbreastADCimagingvaluesMRI2value1malignantdiffusion-weightedcontrast-enhanced×10-3mm/sspecificitybenigndiffusioncoefficient3Tcorrelationpatients232histopathologyhistologicallyobtainedcarcinomahighquantitativecharacterizationOBJECTIVE:distinguishbasissignalintensityapparentalonghistopathologicalMATERIALSANDMETHODS:retrospectiveanalysis500underwentAugust2011May2013done226provedincludedstudycalculatedb010001500s/mmidentificationimagesappropriateROIRegioninterestplacementanalyzedRESULTS:16864cut-offsensitivity9280%8023%12/232false-negative6mucinous8-19PurelyDCISDuctalsitupresentingnon-mass-likeenhancement2-15therebyreducingCONCLUSION:Diffusion-weightedImagingassessmentmayacteffectiveparameterincreasingdiagnosticaccuracyQualitative3T-usefuladjunctApparentcancer

Similar Articles

Cited By (3)