Semi-automated quantitative intravoxel incoherent motion analysis and its implementation in breast diffusion-weighted imaging

Influence of Gadolinium-based Contrast Media and Inter-reader Variation on the Estimation of Intravoxel Incoherent Motion (IVIM) Parameters in Breast MR Imaging

PURPOSE

Gadolinium-based contrast media (GBCM) may affect apparent diffusion coefficient measurements on diffusion-weighted imaging. We aimed at investigating the effect of GBCM and inter-reader variation on intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) parameters in breast lesions.

METHODS

A total of 89 patients referred to 3T breast MRI with at least one histologically verified lesion were included. IVIM data were acquired using a single-shot echo planar imaging sequence before and after GBCM administration. D (true diffusion coefficient), D* (pseudo-diffusion coefficient) and f (perfusion fraction) were calculated and measured by two readers (R1, R2). Inter-reader and intra-reader agreements were assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman plots.

RESULTS

D was comparable before and after GBCM administration and between readers. D* and f decreased after GBCM administration and showed a lower agreement between readers. Intra-reader agreement before and after GBCM administration was almost perfect for D for both R1 and R2 (ICC 0.955 and 0.887). The intra-reader agreement was substantial to moderate for D* (ICC R1 0.708, R2 0.583) and moderate for f (ICC R1 0.529 and R2 0.425). Inter-reader agreement before GBCM administration was almost perfect for D (ICC 0.905), substantial for D* (ICC 0.733), and moderate for f (ICC 0.404); after contrast media administration, it was almost perfect for D (ICC 0.876) and substantial for D* (ICC 0.654) and f (ICC 0.606). Bland-Altman plots revealed no significant bias.

CONCLUSION

Administration of GBCM seems to have a stronger effect on D* and f values than on D values. This should be considered when applying IVIM in clinical practice.

Diffusion kurtosis imaging and intravoxel incoherent motion imaging parameters in breast lesions: Effect of radiologists' experience and region-of-interest selection

PURPOSE

To investigate the influence of ROI placement methods and radiologists' experience on diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) and intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) parameters' diagnostic performance in differentiating benign and malignant lesions based on the mass and non-mass enhancement (NME).

METHODS

We evaluated 138 lesions in 131 patients retrospectively. The IVIM and DKI parameter values were measured by three radiologists with different experiences independently using two different ROI placement methods. IVIM parameters include diffusion coefficient (ADCstand), true diffusion coefficient (ADCslow), pseudo-diffusion coefficient (ADCfast) and perfusion fraction (f). DKI parameters include mean diffusivity (MD) and mean kurtosis (MK). Each radiologist measured the lesions twice with a 3-month interval. We utilized intra-class correlation (ICC) to determine the inter- and intra-reader agreement for mass and NME, respectively. ROC analysis compared the diagnostic performance of parameters between different radiologists, ROI methods, and between mass and NME.

RESULTS

In mass lesions, inter- and intra-observer agreement were perfect for all parameters (ICC: 0.800-989). In NME, the inter-observer agreement was substantial to perfect for all parameters(ICC: 0.703-877), the intra-observer agreement of the senior and intermediate radiologists was substantial to perfect(ICC: 0.748-931) and the intra-observer agreement of the junior radiologist was moderate to substantial(ICC: 0.569-784). The diagnostic performance of ADCslow (Z = 2.209, P = 0.023), MD (mean diffusivity) (Z = 2.887, P = 0.004), and MK (mean kurtosis) (Z = 2.080, P = 0.038) in the small ROI measured by the senior radiologist was better than that of the junior radiologist for NME. The diagnostic performance of ADCslow in the large ROI measured by the senior radiologist (Z = 2.281, P = 0.023) and intermediate radiologist (Z = 2.867, P = 0.0041) was better than the junior radiologist for mass lesions. The diagnostic performance of ADCslow, ADCstand, MD, and MK did not show a significant difference between the two ROI placement methods (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The observers' experience can influence the ROI selection and the diagnostic performance of ADCslow, ADCstand, MD, and MK measured using different methods show equal diagnostic performance.

Diffusion Breast MRI: Current Standard and Emerging Techniques

The role of diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) as a biomarker has been the subject of active investigation in the field of breast radiology. By quantifying the random motion of water within a voxel of tissue, DWI provides indirect metrics that reveal cellularity and architectural features. Studies show that data obtained from DWI may provide information related to the characterization, prognosis, and treatment response of breast cancer. The incorporation of DWI in breast imaging demonstrates its potential to serve as a non-invasive tool to help guide diagnosis and treatment. In this review, current technical literature of diffusion-weighted breast imaging will be discussed, in addition to clinical applications, advanced techniques, and emerging use in the field of radiomics.

Ultra-High b-Value Diffusion-Weighted Imaging-Based Abbreviated Protocols for Breast Cancer Detection

OBJECTIVES

Contrast-enhanced (CE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the most effective imaging modality for breast cancer detection. A contrast agent-free examination technique would be desirable for breast MRI screening. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the capability to detect and characterize suspicious breast lesions with an abbreviated, non-contrast-enhanced MRI protocol featuring ultra-high b-value diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) compared with CE images.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The institutional review board-approved prospective study included 127 female subjects with different clinical indications for breast MRI. Magnetic resonance imaging examinations included DWI sequences with b-values of 1500 s/mm2 (b1500) and 2500 s/mm2 (b2500), native T1- and T2-weighted images, and CE sequences at 1.5 T and 3 T scanners. Two reading rounds were performed, including either the b1500 or the b2500 DWI in consecutive assessment steps: (A) maximum intensity projections (MIPs) of DWI, (B) DWI and apparent diffusion coefficient maps, (C) as (B) but with additional native T1- and T2-weighted images, and (D) as (C) but with additional CE images (full-length protocol). Two readers independently determined the presence of a suspicious lesion. Histological confirmation was obtained for conspicuous lesions, whereas the full MRI data set was obtained for inconspicuous and clearly benign lesions. Statistical analysis included calculation of diagnostic accuracy and interrater agreement via the intraclass correlation coefficient.

RESULTS

The cohort comprised 116 cases with BI-RADS 1 findings and 138 cases with BI-RADS ≥2 findings, including 38 histologically confirmed malignancies. For (A), breasts without pathological findings could be recognized with high diagnostic accuracy (negative predictive value, ≥97.0%; sensitivity, ≥92.1% for both readers), but with a limited specificity (≥58.3%; positive predictive value, ≥28.6%). Within the native readings, approach (C) with b2500 performed best (negative predictive value, 99.5%; sensitivity, 97.4%; specificity, 88.4%). The intraclass correlation coefficient was between 0.683 (MIP b1500) and 0.996 (full protocol).

CONCLUSIONS

A native abbreviated breast MRI protocol with advanced high b-value DWI might allow nearly equivalent diagnostic accuracy as CE breast MRI and seems to be well suited for lesion detection purposes.

Intravoxel Incoherent Motion Diffusion-Weighted Imaging for Quantitative Differentiation of Breast Tumors: A Meta-Analysis

Objectives: The diagnostic performance of intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion–weighted imaging (IVIM-DWI) in the differential diagnosis of breast tumors remains debatable among published studies. Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to pool relevant evidence regarding the diagnostic performance of IVIM-DWI in the differential diagnosis of breast tumors.

Methods: Studies on the differential diagnosis of breast lesions using IVIM-DWI were systemically searched in the PubMed, Embase and Web of Science databases in recent 10 years. The standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), tissue diffusivity (D), pseudodiffusivity (D^*), and perfusion fraction (f) were calculated using Review Manager 5.3, and Stata 12.0 was used to pool the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC), as well as assess publication bias and heterogeneity. Fagan's nomogram was used to predict the posttest probabilities.

Results: Sixteen studies comprising 1,355 malignant and 362 benign breast lesions were included. Most of these studies showed a low to unclear risk of bias and low concerns regarding applicability. Breast cancer had significant lower ADC (SMD = −1.38, P < 0.001) and D values (SMD = −1.50, P < 0.001), and higher f value (SMD = 0.89, P = 0.001) than benign lesions, except D^* value (SMD = −0.30, P = 0.20). Invasive ductal carcinoma showed lower ADC (SMD = 1.34, P = 0.01) and D values (SMD = 1.04, P = 0.001) than ductal carcinoma in situ. D value demonstrated the best diagnostic performance (sensitivity = 86%, specificity = 86%, AUC = 0.91) and highest post-test probability (61, 48, 46, and 34% for D, ADC, f, and D^* values) in the differential diagnosis of breast tumors, followed by ADC (sensitivity = 76%, specificity = 79%, AUC = 0.85), f (sensitivity = 80%, specificity = 76%, AUC = 0.85) and D^* values (sensitivity = 84%, specificity = 59%, AUC = 0.71).

Conclusion: IVIM-DWI parameters are adequate and superior to the ADC in the differentiation of breast tumors. ADC and D values can further differentiate invasive ductal carcinoma from ductal carcinoma in situ. IVIM-DWI is also superior in identifying lymph node metastasis, histologic grade, and hormone receptors, and HER2 and Ki-67 status.

Current and Emerging Magnetic Resonance-Based Techniques for Breast Cancer

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among women worldwide, and early detection remains a principal factor for improved patient outcomes and reduced mortality. Clinically, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques are routinely used in determining benign and malignant tumor phenotypes and for monitoring treatment outcomes. Static MRI techniques enable superior structural contrast between adipose and fibroglandular tissues, while dynamic MRI techniques can elucidate functional characteristics of malignant tumors. The preferred clinical procedure-dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI-illuminates the hypervascularity of breast tumors through a gadolinium-based contrast agent; however, accumulation of the potentially toxic contrast agent remains a major limitation of the technique, propelling MRI research toward finding an alternative, noninvasive method. Three such techniques are magnetic resonance spectroscopy, chemical exchange saturation transfer, and non-contrast diffusion weighted imaging. These methods shed light on underlying chemical composition, provide snapshots of tissue metabolism, and more pronouncedly characterize microstructural heterogeneity. This review article outlines the present state of clinical MRI for breast cancer and examines several research techniques that demonstrate capacity for clinical translation. Ultimately, multi-parametric MRI-incorporating one or more of these emerging methods-presently holds the best potential to afford improved specificity and deliver excellent accuracy to clinics for the prediction, detection, and monitoring of breast cancer.

Diagnostic performance of breast tumor tissue selection in diffusion weighted imaging: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several methods for tumor delineation are used in literature on breast diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) to measure the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC). However, in the process of reaching consensus on breast DWI scanning protocol, image analysis and interpretation, still no standardized optimal breast tumor tissue selection (BTTS) method exists. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to assess the impact of BTTS methods on ADC in the discrimination of benign from malignant breast lesions in DWI in terms of sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve (AUC).

METHODS AND FINDINGS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, adhering to the PRISMA statement, 61 studies, with 65 study subsets, in females with benign or malignant primary breast lesions (6291 lesions) were assessed. Studies on DWI, quantified by ADC, scanned on 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla and using b-values 0/50 and ≥ 800 s/mm2 were included. PubMed and EMBASE were searched for studies up to 23-10-2019 (n = 2897). Data were pooled based on four BTTS methods (by definition of measured region of interest, ROI): BTTS1: whole breast tumor tissue selection, BTTS2: subtracted whole breast tumor tissue selection, BTTS3: circular breast tumor tissue selection and BTTS4: lowest diffusion breast tumor tissue selection. BTTS methods 2 and 3 excluded necrotic, cystic and hemorrhagic areas. Pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC of the BTTS methods were calculated. Heterogeneity was explored using the inconsistency index (I2) and considering covariables: field strength, lowest b-value, image of BTTS selection, pre-or post-contrast DWI, slice thickness and ADC threshold. Pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC were: 0.82 (0.72-0.89), 0.79 (0.65-0.89), 0.88 (0.85-0.90) for BTTS1; 0.91 (0.89-0.93), 0.84 (0.80-0.87), 0.94 (0.91-0.96) for BTTS2; 0.89 (0.86-0.92), 0.90 (0.85-0.93), 0.95 (0.93-0.96) for BTTS3 and 0.90 (0.86-0.93), 0.84 (0.81-0.87), 0.86 (0.82-0.88) for BTTS4, respectively. Significant heterogeneity was found between studies (I2 = 95).

CONCLUSIONS

None of the breast tissue selection (BTTS) methodologies outperformed in differentiating benign from malignant breast lesions. The high heterogeneity of ADC data acquisition demands further standardization, such as DWI acquisition parameters and tumor tissue selection to substantially increase the reliability of DWI of the breast.

Diffusion MRI of the breast: Current status and future directions

Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) is increasingly being incorporated into routine breast MRI protocols in many institutions worldwide, and there are abundant breast DWI indications ranging from lesion detection and distinguishing malignant from benign tumors to assessing prognostic biomarkers of breast cancer and predicting treatment response. DWI has the potential to serve as a noncontrast MR screening method. Beyond apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) mapping, which is a commonly used quantitative DWI measure, advanced DWI models such as intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM), non-Gaussian diffusion MRI, and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) are extensively exploited in this field, allowing the characterization of tissue perfusion and architecture and improving diagnostic accuracy without the use of contrast agents. This review will give a summary of the clinical literature along with future directions. Level of Evidence: 5 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;52:70-90.

Diffusion MRI of cancer: From low to high b-values

Following its success in early detection of cerebral ischemia, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) has been increasingly used in cancer diagnosis and treatment evaluation. These applications are propelled by the rapid development of novel diffusion models to extract biologically valuable information from diffusion-weighted MR signals, and significant advances in MR hardware that has enabled image acquisition with high b-values. This article reviews recent technical developments and clinical applications in cancer imaging using DWI, with a special emphasis on high b-value diffusion models. The article is organized in four sections. First, we provide an overview of diffusion models that are relevant to cancer imaging. The model parameters are discussed in relation to three tissue properties-cellularity, vascularity, and microstructures. An emphasis is placed on characterization of microstructural heterogeneity, given its novelty and close relevance to cancer. Second, we illustrate diffusion MR clinical applications in each of the following three categories: 1) cancer detection and diagnosis; 2) cancer grading, staging, and classification; and 3) cancer treatment response prediction and evaluation. Third, we discuss several practical issues, including selection of image acquisition parameters, reproducibility and reliability, motion management, image distortion, etc., that are commonly encountered when applying DWI to cancer in clinical settings. Lastly, we highlight a few ongoing challenges and provide some possible future directions, particularly in the area of establishing standards via well-organized multicenter clinical trials to accelerate clinical translation of advanced DWI techniques to improving cancer care on a large scale. Level of Evidence: 5 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:23-40.

Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in characterization of axillary lymph nodes: Preliminary animal experience

PURPOSE

To investigate the diagnostic value of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for discriminating axillary metastatic from non-metastatic lymph nodes (LNs) in rabbit models.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The institutional animal care and use committee approved this study. Forty New Zealand white rabbits were randomly divided into two groups. The axillary LN models were created by inoculating VX2 cell suspension and complete Freund's adjuvant in the mammary glands of 20 female rabbits of each group, respectively. Conventional MRI and IVIM DWI were performed after animal models successfully established. Images of axillary LNs were analyzed with regard to long-axis diameter (L), short-axis diameter (S), apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and IVIM parameters (D, D*, f). Receiver operating characteristic analyses were conducted to determine the diagnostic performance of aforementioned criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 42 metastatic and 30 non-metastatic LNs were successfully isolated. ADC and D of metastatic LNs were significantly lower than those of non-metastatic ones (all P < 0.001), whereas D* was statistically higher (P = 0.033). L, S, and f showed no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.089, 0.058, 0.054, respectively). Optimal cutoff values, area under the curve, sensitivity, and specificity for differentiation were as follows: ADC = 1.101 × 10^-3 mm²/s, 0.886, 78.6%, 90.0%; D = 0.938 × 10^-3 mm²/s, 0.927, 83.3%, 93.3%; and D* = 12.635 × 10^-3 mm²/s, 0.657, 52.4%, 80.0%.

CONCLUSION

IVIM DWI is useful to distinguish metastatic from non-metastatic LNs in axilla. D was the most discriminative variable for predicting metastatic LNs.

Intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) histogram biomarkers for prediction of neoadjuvant treatment response in breast cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

To examine the prognostic capabilities of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) metrics and their ability to predict response to neoadjuvant treatment (NAT). Additionally, to observe changes in IVIM metrics between pre- and post-treatment MRI.

METHODS

This IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant retrospective study observed 31 breast cancer patients (32 lesions). Patients underwent standard bilateral breast MRI along with diffusion-weighted imaging before and after NAT. Six patients underwent an additional IVIM-MRI scan 12-14 weeks after initial scan and 2 cycles of treatment. In addition to apparent diffusion coefficients (ADC) from monoexponential decay, IVIM mean values (tissue diffusivity D_t, perfusion fraction f_p, and pseudodiffusivity D_p) and histogram metrics were derived using a biexponential model. An additional filter identified voxels of highly vascular tumor tissue (VTT), excluding necrotic or normal tissue. Clinical data include histology of biopsy and clinical response to treatment through RECIST assessment. Comparisons of treatment response were made using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.

RESULTS

Average, kurtosis, and skewness of pseudodiffusion D_p significantly differentiated RECIST responders from nonresponders. ADC and D_t values generally increased (∼70%) and VTT% values generally decreased (∼20%) post-treatment.

CONCLUSION

D_p metrics showed prognostic capabilities; slow and heterogeneous pseudodiffusion offer poor prognosis. Baseline ADC/D_t parameters were not significant predictors of response. This work suggests that IVIM mean values and heterogeneity metrics may have prognostic value in the setting of breast cancer NAT.

Intravoxel Incoherent Motion Diffusion for Identification of Breast Malignant and Benign Tumors Using Chemometrics

The aim of the paper is to identify the breast malignant and benign lesions using the features of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), perfusion fraction f, pseudodiffusion coefficient D^⁎, and true diffusion coefficient D from intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM). There are 69 malignant cases (including 9 early malignant cases) and 35 benign breast cases who underwent diffusion-weighted MRI at 3.0 T with 8 b-values (0~1000 s/mm²). ADC and IVIM parameters were determined in lesions. The early malignant cases are used as advanced malignant and benign tumors, respectively, so as to assess the effectiveness on the result. A predictive model was constructed using Support Vector Machine Binary Classification (SVMBC, also known Support Vector Machine Discriminant Analysis (SVMDA)) and Partial Least Squares Discriminant Analysis (PLSDA) and compared the difference between them both. The D value and ADC provide accurate identification of malignant lesions with b = 300, if early malignant tumor was considered as advanced malignant (cancer). The classification accuracy is 93.5% for cross-validation using SVMBC with ADC and tissue diffusivity only. The sensitivity and specificity are 100% and 87.0%, respectively, r²_cv = 0.8163, and root mean square error of cross-validation (RMSECV) is 0.043. ADC and IVIM provide quantitative measurement of tissue diffusivity for cellularity and are helpful with the method of SVMBC, getting comprehensive and complementary information for differentiation between benign and malignant breast lesions.

Clinical Breast MR Using MRS or DWI: Who Is the Winner?

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast gained a role in clinical practice thanks to the optimal sensitivity of contrast-enhanced (CE) protocols. This approach, first proposed 30 years ago and further developed as bilateral highly spatially resolved dynamic study, is currently considered superior for cancer detection to any other technique. However, other directions than CE imaging have been explored. Apart from morphologic features on unenhanced T2-weighted images, two different non-contrast molecular approaches were mainly run in vivo: proton MR spectroscopy (1H-MRS) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). Both approaches have shown aspects of breast cancer (BC) hidden to CE-MRI: 1H-MRS allowed for evaluating the total choline peak (tCho) as a biomarker of malignancy; DWI showed that restricted diffusivity is correlated with high cellularity and tumor aggressiveness. Secondary evidence on the two approaches is now available from systematic reviews and meta-analyses, mainly considered in this article: pooled sensitivity ranged 71–74% for 1H-MRS and 84–91% for DWI; specificity 78–88% and 75–84%, respectively. Interesting research perspectives are opened for both techniques, including multivoxel MRS and statistical strategies for classification of MR spectra as well as diffusion tensor imaging and intravoxel incoherent motion for DWI. However, when looking at a clinical perspective, while MRS remained a research tool with important limitations, such as relatively long acquisition times, frequent low quality spectra, difficult standardization, and quantification of tCho tissue concentration, DWI has been integrated in the standard clinical protocols of breast MRI and several studies showed its potential value as a stand-alone approach for BC detection.

Voxelwise analysis of simultaneously acquired and spatially correlated 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET and intravoxel incoherent motion metrics in breast cancer

PURPOSE

Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and ¹⁸ F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (¹⁸ F-FDG-PET) independently correlate with malignancy in breast cancer, but the relationship between their structural and metabolic metrics is not completely understood. This study spatially correlates diffusion, perfusion, and glucose avidity in breast cancer with simultaneous PET/MR imaging and compares correlations with clinical prognostics.

METHODS

In this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant prospective study, with written informed consent and approval of the institutional review board and using simultaneously acquired FDG-PET and DWI, tissue diffusion (D_t ), and perfusion fraction (f_p ) from intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) analysis were registered to FDG-PET within 14 locally advanced breast cancers. Lesions were analyzed using 2D histograms and correlation coefficients between D_t , f_p , and standardized uptake value (SUV). Correlations were compared with prognostics from biopsy, metastatic burden from whole-body PET, and treatment history.

RESULTS

SUV||D_t correlation coefficient significantly distinguished treated (0.11 ± 0.24) from nontreated (-0.33 ± 0.26) patients (P = 0.005). SUV||f_p correlations were on average negative for the whole cohort (-0.17 ± 0.13).

CONCLUSION

Simultaneously acquired and registered FDG-PET/DWI allowed quantifiable descriptions of breast cancer microenvironments that may provide a framework for monitoring and predicting response to treatment. Magn Reson Med 78:1147-1156, 2017. © 2016 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.

Diffusion-weighted breast MRI: Clinical applications and emerging techniques

Diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) holds potential to improve the detection and biological characterization of breast cancer. DWI is increasingly being incorporated into breast MRI protocols to address some of the shortcomings of routine clinical breast MRI. Potential benefits include improved differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions, assessment and prediction of therapeutic efficacy, and noncontrast detection of breast cancer. The breast presents a unique imaging environment with significant physiologic and inter-subject variations, as well as specific challenges to achieving reliable high quality diffusion-weighted MR images. Technical innovations are helping to overcome many of the image quality issues that have limited widespread use of DWI for breast imaging. Advanced modeling approaches to further characterize tissue perfusion, complexity, and glandular organization may expand knowledge and yield improved diagnostic tools.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

5 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017;45:337-355.

Quantitative DWI implemented after DCE-MRI yields increased specificity for BI-RADS 3 and 4 breast lesions

PURPOSE

To assess if specificity can be increased when semiautomated breast lesion analysis of quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) is implemented after dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE-) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the workup of BI-RADS 3 and 4 breast lesions larger than 1 cm.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In all, 120 consecutive patients (mean-age, 48 years; age range, 23-75 years) with 139 breast lesions (≥1 cm) were examined (2010-2014) with 1.5T DCE-MRI and DWI (b = 0, 50, 200, 500, 800, 1000 s/mm² ) and the BI-RADS classification and histopathology were obtained. For each lesion malignancy was excluded using voxelwise semiautomated breast lesion analysis based on previously defined thresholds for the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and the three intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) parameters: molecular diffusion (D_slow ), microperfusion (D_fast ), and the fraction of D_fast (f_fast ). The sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), and negative predictive value (NPV) based on only IVIM parameters combined in parallel (D_slow , D_fast , and f_fast ), or the ADC or the BI-RADS classification by DCE-MRI were compared. Subsequently, the Se, Sp, and NPV of the combination of the BI-RADS classification by DCE-MRI followed by the IVIM parameters in parallel (or the ADC) were compared.

RESULTS

In all, 23 of 139 breast lesions were benign. Se and Sp of DCE-MRI was 100% and 30.4% (NPV = 100%). Se and Sp of IVIM parameters in parallel were 92.2% and 52.2% (NPV = 57.1%) and for the ADC 95.7% and 17.4%, respectively (NPV = 44.4%). In all, 26 of 139 lesions were classified as BI-RADS 3 (n = 7) or BI-RADS 4 (n = 19). DCE-MRI combined with ADC (Se = 99.1%, Sp = 34.8%) or IVIM (Se = 99.1%, Sp = 56.5%) did significantly improve (P = 0.016) Sp of DCE-MRI alone for workup of BI-RADS 3 and 4 lesions (NPV = 92.9%).

CONCLUSION

Quantitative DWI has a lower NPV compared to DCE-MRI for evaluation of breast lesions and may therefore not be able to replace DCE-MRI; when implemented after DCE-MRI as problem solver for BI-RADS 3 and 4 lesions, the combined specificity improves significantly. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;44:1642-1649.