Two Different Methods of Region-of-Interest Placement for Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions by Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Value

Simplified intravoxel incoherent motion DWI for differentiating malignant from benign breast lesions

Background

To evaluate simplified intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for differentiating malignant versus benign breast lesions as (i) stand-alone tool and (ii) add-on to dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging.

Methods

1.5-T DWI data (b = 0, 50, 250, 800 s/mm²) were retrospectively analysed for 126 patients with malignant or benign breast lesions. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) ADC (0, 800) and IVIM-based parameters D₁′ = ADC (50, 800), D₂′ = ADC (250, 800), f₁′ = f (0, 50, 800), f₂′ = f (0, 250, 800) and D*′ = D* (0, 50, 250, 800) were voxel-wise calculated without fitting procedures. Regions of interest were analysed in vital tumour and perfusion hot spots. Beside the single parameters, the combined use of D₁′ with f₁′ and D₂′ with f₂′ was evaluated. Lesion differentiation was investigated for lesions (i) with hyperintensity on DWI with b = 800 s/mm² (n = 191) and (ii) with suspicious contrast-enhancement (n = 135).

Results

All lesions with suspicious contrast-enhancement appeared also hyperintense on DWI with b = 800 s/mm². For task (i), best discrimination was reached for the combination of D₁′ and f₁′ using perfusion hot spot regions-of-interest (accuracy 93.7%), which was higher than that of ADC (86.9%, p = 0.003) and single IVIM parameters D₁′ (88.0%) and f₁′ (87.4%). For task (ii), best discrimination was reached for single parameter D₁′ using perfusion hot spot regions-of-interest (92.6%), which were slightly but not significantly better than that of ADC (91.1%) and D₂′ (88.1%). Adding f₁′ to D₁′ did not improve discrimination.

Conclusions

IVIM analysis yielded a higher accuracy than ADC. If stand-alone DWI is used, perfusion analysis is of special relevance.

Diagnostic utility of three Tesla diffusion tensor imaging in prostate cancer: correlation with Gleason score values

Background

Preoperative assessment of prostate cancer (PCa) aggressiveness is a prerequisite to provide specific management options. The Gleason score (GS) obtained from prostatic biopsy or surgery is crucial for the evaluation of PCa aggressiveness and personalized treatment planning. Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) provides valuable information about microstructural properties of prostatic tissue. The most common prostate DTI measures are the fractional anisotropy (FA) and median diffusivity (MD) can give more information regarding the biophysical characteristics of prostate tissue. We aimed to explore the correlation of these DTI parameters with GS levels in PCa patients that can affect the management protocol of PCa.

Results

The computed area under curve (AUC) of the FA values used to differentiate cancer patients from control group was (0.90) with cutoff point to differentiate both groups were ≥ 0.245. The computed sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were (84%, 80%, 95.5%, and 50%), respectively, with accuracy 83.3%. FA showed high positive correlation with Gleason score (p value < 0.001). Median diffusivity (MD) showed negative correlation with GS with statistically significant results (p value  = 0.013). PCa fiber bundles were dense, orderly arranged, without interruption in the low grade, and slightly disorganized in the intermediate group. However, in the high-grade group, the fiber bundles were interrupted, irregularly arranged, and absent at the site of cancerous foci.

Conclusions

Combined quantitative parameter values (FA and MD values) and parametric diagrams (FA and DTI maps) can be utilized to evaluate prostate cancer aggressiveness and prognosis, helping in the improvement of the management protocol of PCa patients.

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.

Effect of Inter-Reader Variability on Diffusion-Weighted MRI Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Measurements and Prediction of Pathologic Complete Response for Breast Cancer

This study evaluated the inter-reader agreement of tumor apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements performed on breast diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for assessing treatment response in a multi-center clinical trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for breast cancer. DWIs from 103 breast cancer patients (mean age: 46 ± 11 years) acquired at baseline and after 3 weeks of treatment were evaluated independently by two readers. Three types of tumor regions of interests (ROIs) were delineated: multiple-slice restricted, single-slice restricted and single-slice tumor ROIs. Compared to tumor ROIs, restricted ROIs were limited to low ADC areas of enhancing tumor only. We found excellent agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] ranged from 0.94 to 0.98) for mean ADC. Higher ICCs were observed in multiple-slice restricted ROIs (range: 0.97 to 0.98) than in other two ROI types (both in the range of 0.94 to 0.98). Among the three ROI types, the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) were observed for mean ADC of multiple-slice restricted ROIs (0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52–0.79 and 0.67, 95% CI: 0.53–0.81 for Reader 1 and Reader 2, respectively). In conclusion, mean ADC values of multiple-slice restricted ROI showed excellent agreement and similar predictive performance for pathologic complete response between the two readers.

Comparison of different ROI analysis methods for liver lesion characterization with simplified intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM)

This study investigated the impact of different ROI placement and analysis methods on the diagnostic performance of simplified IVIM-DWI for differentiating liver lesions. 1.5/3.0-T DWI data from a respiratory-gated MRI sequence (b = 0, 50, 250, 800 s/mm²) were analyzed in patients with malignant (n = 74/54) and benign (n = 35/19) lesions. Apparent diffusion coefficient ADC = ADC(0,800) and IVIM parameters D₁' = ADC(50,800), D₂' = ADC(250,800), f₁' = f(0,50,800), f₂' = f(0,250,800), and D*' = D*(0,50,250,800) were calculated voxel-wise. For each lesion, a representative 2D-ROI, a 3D-ROI whole lesion, and a 3D-ROI from "good" slices were placed, including and excluding centrally deviating areas (CDA) if present, and analyzed with various histogram metrics. The diagnostic performance of 2D- and 3D-ROIs was not significantly different; e.g. AUC (ADC/D₁'/f₁') were 0.958/0.902/0.622 for 2D- and 0.942/0.892/0.712 for whole lesion 3D-ROIs excluding CDA at 1.5 T (p > 0.05). For 2D- and 3D-ROIs, AUC (ADC/D₁'/D₂') were significantly higher, when CDA were excluded. With CDA included, AUC (ADC/D₁'/D₂'/f₁'/D*') improved when low percentiles were used instead of averages, and was then comparable to the results of average ROI analysis excluding CDA. For lesion differentiation the use of a representative 2D-ROI is sufficient. CDA should be excluded from ROIs by hand or automatically using low percentiles of diffusion coefficients.

Discrimination of benign from malignant breast lesions in dense breasts with model-based analysis of regions-of-interest using directional diffusion-weighted images

Background

There is an increasing interest in non-contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting and evaluating breast lesions. We present a methodology utilizing lesion core and periphery region of interest (ROI) features derived from directional diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) data to evaluate performance in discriminating benign from malignant lesions in dense breasts.

Methods

We accrued 55 dense-breast cases with 69 lesions (31 benign; 38 cancer) at a single institution in a prospective study; cases with ROIs exceeding 7.50 cm² were excluded, resulting in analysis of 50 cases with 63 lesions (29 benign, 34 cancers). Spin-echo echo-planar imaging DWI was acquired at 1.5 T and 3 T. Data from three diffusion encoding gradient directions were exported and processed independently. Lesion ROIs were hand-drawn on DWI images by two radiologists. A region growing algorithm generated 3D lesion models on augmented apparent-diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps and defined lesion core and lesion periphery sub-ROIs. A lesion-core and a lesion-periphery feature were defined and combined into an overall classifier whose performance was compared to that of mean ADC using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Inter-observer variability in ROI definition was measured using Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC).

Results

The region-growing algorithm for 3D lesion model generation improved inter-observer variability over hand drawn ROIs (DSC: 0.66 vs 0.56 (p < 0.001) with substantial agreement (DSC > 0.8) in 46% vs 13% of cases, respectively (p < 0.001)). The overall classifier improved discrimination over mean ADC, (ROC- area under the curve (AUC): 0.85 vs 0.75 and 0.83 vs 0.74 respectively for the two readers).

Conclusions

A classifier generated from directional DWI information using lesion core and lesion periphery information separately can improve lesion discrimination in dense breasts over mean ADC and should be considered for inclusion in computer-aided diagnosis algorithms. Our model-based ROIs could facilitate standardization of breast MRI computer-aided diagnostics (CADx).

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-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging as a Noninvasive Parameter for Differentiating Benign and Malignant Intraperitoneal Collections

Background and Objective: The imaging differentiation of benign from malignant intraperitoneal collections (IPCs) relies on the tumoral morphological modifications of the peritoneum, which are not always advocating for malignancy. We aimed to assess ascitic fluid with the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) to determine non-invasive, stand-alone, differentiation criteria for benign and malignant intraperitoneal effusions. Materials and Methods: Sixty-one patients with known IPCs who underwent magnetic resonance examinations for reasons such as tumor staging, undetermined abdominal mass and disease follow up were retrospectively included in this study. All subjects had a final diagnosis of the fluid based on pathological examinations, which were divided into benign (n = 37) and malignant (n = 24) IPCs groups. ADC values were measured separately by two radiologists, and the average values were used for comparing the two groups by consuming the independent samples t-test. The receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to test the ADC values' diagnostic ability to distinguish malignant from benign collections. Results: The differentiation between benign and malignant IPCs based on ADC values was statistically significant (p = 0.0034). The mean ADC values were higher for the benign (3.543 × 10^-3 mm²/s) than for the malignant group (3.057 × 10^-3 mm²/s). The optimum ADC cutoff point for the diagnosis of malignant ascites was <3.241 × 10^-3 mm²/s, with a sensitivity of 77.78% and a specificity of 80%. Conclusions: ADC represents a noninvasive and reproducible imaging parameter that may help to assess intraperitoneal collections. Although successful in distinguishing malignant from benign IPCs, further research must be conducted in order to certify if the difference in ADC values is a consequence of the physical characteristics of the ascitic fluids or their appurtenance to a certain histopathological group.

Can apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) distinguish breast cancer from benign breast findings? A meta-analysis based on 13 847 lesions

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the present meta-analysis was to provide evident data about use of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) values for distinguishing malignant and benign breast lesions.

METHODS

MEDLINE library and SCOPUS database were screened for associations between ADC and malignancy/benignancy of breast lesions up to December 2018. Overall, 123 items were identified. The following data were extracted from the literature: authors, year of publication, study design, number of patients/lesions, lesion type, mean value and standard deviation of ADC, measure method, b values, and Tesla strength. The methodological quality of the 123 studies was checked according to the QUADAS-2 instrument. The meta-analysis was undertaken by using RevMan 5.3 software. DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models with inverse-variance weights were used without any further correction to account for the heterogeneity between the studies. Mean ADC values including 95% confidence intervals were calculated separately for benign and malign lesions.

RESULTS

The acquired 123 studies comprised 13,847 breast lesions. Malignant lesions were diagnosed in 10,622 cases (76.7%) and benign lesions in 3225 cases (23.3%). The mean ADC value of the malignant lesions was 1.03 × 10^- 3 mm²/s and the mean value of the benign lesions was 1.5 × 10^- 3 mm²/s. The calculated ADC values of benign lesions were over the value of 1.00 × 10^- 3 mm²/s. This result was independent on Tesla strength, choice of b values, and measure methods (whole lesion measure vs estimation of ADC in a single area).

CONCLUSION

An ADC threshold of 1.00 × 10^- 3 mm²/s can be recommended for distinguishing breast cancers from benign lesions.