Top

European Radiology

Published in:

01-07-2016 | Breast

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

Authors: Paola Clauser, Magda Marcon, Marta Maieron, Chiara Zuiani, Massimo Bazzocchi, Pascal A. T. Baltzer

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 7/2016

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the influence of post-processing systems, intra- and inter-reader agreement on the variability of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements in breast lesions.

Methods

Forty-one patients with 41 biopsy-proven breast lesions gave their informed consent and were included in this prospective IRB-approved study. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations were performed at 1.5 T using an EPI-DWI sequence, with b-values of 0 and 1000 s/mm². Two radiologists (R1, R2) reviewed the images in separate sessions and measured the ADC for lesion, using MRI-workstation (S-WS), PACS-workstation (P-WS) and a commercial DICOM viewer (O-SW). Agreement was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland–Altman plots and coefficient of variation (CV).

Results

Thirty-one malignant, two high-risk and eight benign mass-like lesions were analysed. Intra-reader agreement was almost perfect (ICC-R1 = 0.974; ICC-R2 = 0.990) while inter-reader agreement was substantial (ICC from 0.615 to 0.682). Bland–Altman plots revealed a significant bias in ADC values measured between O-SW and S-WS (P = 0.025), no further systematic differences were identified. CV varied from 6.8 % to 7.9 %.

Conclusion

Post-processing systems may have a significant, although minor, impact on ADC measurements in breast lesions. While intra-reader agreement is high, the main source of ADC variability seems to be caused by inter-reader variation.

Key points

• ADC provides quantitative information on breast lesions independent from the system used.

• ADC measurement using different workstations and software systems is generally reliable.

• Systematic, but minor, differences may occur between different post-processing systems.

• Inter-reader agreement of ADC measurements exceeded intra-reader agreement.

Baltzer PAT, Benndorf M, Dietzel M et al (2010) Sensitivity and specificity of unenhanced MR mammography (DWI combined with T2-weighted TSE imaging, ueMRM) for the differentiation of mass lesions. Eur Radiol 20:1101–1110CrossRefPubMed

Partridge SC, McDonald ES (2013) Diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: protocol optimization, interpretation, and clinical applications. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 21:601–624CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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

Wu L-M, Hu J-N, Gu H-Y et al (2012) Can diffusion-weighted MR imaging and contrast-enhanced MR imaging precisely evaluate and predict pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer? Breast Cancer Res Treat 135:17–28CrossRefPubMed

Woodhams R, Ramadan S, Stanwell P et al (2011) Diffusion-weighted imaging of the breast: principles and clinical applications. Radiogr Rev Publ Radiol Soc N Am Inc 31:1059–1084

Sasaki M, Yamada K, Watanabe Y et al (2008) Variability in absolute apparent diffusion coefficient values across different platforms may be substantial: a multivendor, multi-institutional comparison study. Radiology 249:624–630CrossRefPubMed

Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefPubMed

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

Baltzer A, Dietzel M, Kaiser CG, Baltzer PA (2015) Combined reading of contrast enhanced and diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging by using a simple sum score. Eur Radiol. doi:10.1007/s00330-015-3886-x PubMedCentral

10.

El Kady RM, Choudhary AK, Tappouni R (2011) Accuracy of apparent diffusion coefficient value measurement on PACS workstation: a comparative analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:W280–284CrossRefPubMed

11.

Donati OF, Chong D, Nanz D et al (2014) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of upper abdominal organs: field strength and intervendor variability of apparent diffusion coefficients. Radiology 270:454–463CrossRefPubMed

12.

Ye X-H, Gao J-Y, Yang Z-H, Liu Y (2014) Apparent diffusion coefficient reproducibility of the pancreas measured at different MR scanners using diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging JMRI 40:1375–1381CrossRefPubMed

13.

Inoue C, Fujii S, Kaneda S et al (2014) Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurement in endometrial carcinoma: effect of region of interest methods on ADC values. J Magn Reson Imaging JMRI 40:157–161CrossRefPubMed

14.

Lambregts DMJ, 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

15.

Bilgili Y, Unal B (2004) Effect of region of interest on interobserver variance in apparent diffusion coefficient measures. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 25:108–111PubMed

16.

Giannotti E, Waugh S, Priba L et al (2015) Assessment and quantification of sources of variability in breast apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements at diffusion weighted imaging. Eur J Radiol. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.05.032 PubMed

17.

Molinari C, Clauser P, Girometti R et al. (2015) MR mammography using diffusion-weighted imaging in evaluating breast cancer: a correlation with proliferation index. Radiol Med. 120(10):911–918

18.

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

Title: 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
Authors: Paola Clauser
Magda Marcon
Marta Maieron
Chiara Zuiani
Massimo Bazzocchi
Pascal A. T. Baltzer
Publication date: 01-07-2016
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 7/2016
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-4051-2

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

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

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Key points

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Key points

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 7/2016

Efficacy and safety of preoperative chemoembolization for resectable hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein invasion: a prospective comparative study

Quantitative 3D analysis of bone in hip osteoarthritis using clinical computed tomography

Comparison of the image qualities of filtered back-projection, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and model-based iterative reconstruction for CT venography at 80 kVp

Penetrating aerodigestive injuries in the neck: a proposed CT-aided modified selective management algorithm

Safety and Clinical Effectiveness of Percutaneous Vertebroplasty in the Elderly (≥80 years)

Novel application of chemical shift gradient echo in- and opposed-phase sequences in 3 T MRI for the detection of H-MRS visible lipids and grading of glioma