Diffusion-weighted imaging of breast lesions: Region-of-interest placement and different ADC parameters influence apparent diffusion coefficient values
- 449 Downloads
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.
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.
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).
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.
• 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.
KeywordsBreast cancer Magnetic resonance imaging Molecular imaging Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging Reproducibility of results and findings
Apparent diffusion coefficient
Area under the curve
Ductal carcinoma in situ
Diffusion weighted imaging
Echo planar imaging
Invasive ductal carcinoma
Invasive lobular carcinoma
Intraductal papillary carcinoma
Magnetic resonance imaging
Receiver operating characteristics
Region of interest
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Thomas Helbich. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. This study has received funding by projects no. 13652 funded by Austrian National Bank ‘Jubilaeumsfond’ and no. 10029 funded by the Medical-Scientific Funds of the Mayor of Vienna.
One of the authors (Pascal Baltzer) has significant statistical expertise. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study. Approval from the institutional animal care committee was not required because no animals were involved in this study. Some study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported in:
Pinker K, Bickel H, Helbich TH, et al. 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. 2013;23(7):1791-802. (n = 85)
Pinker K, Bogner W, Baltzer P, et al. 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. Investigative radiology. 2014;49(6):421-30. (n = 52)
Pinker K, Bogner W, Baltzer P, et al. Improved differentiation of benign and malignant breast tumours with multiparametric 18fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography magnetic resonance imaging: a feasibility study. Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. 2014;20(13):3540-9. (n = 39)
Bickel H, Pinker-Domenig K, Bogner W, et al. Quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient as a noninvasive imaging biomarker for the differentiation of invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ. Investigative radiology. 2015;50(2):95-100. (n = 83)
Methodology: retrospective, diagnostic or prognostic study, performed at one institution.
- 7.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 29:644–649CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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 Google Scholar
- 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 49:421–430CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 34.(2010) European Society of Radiology. white paper on imaging biomarkers. Insights Imag 1:42–45Google Scholar