Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 9/2020

01-09-2020 | Magnetic Resonance Imaging | Breast

Diffusion-weighted imaging or dynamic contrast-enhanced curve: a retrospective analysis of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging–based differential diagnoses of benign and malignant breast lesions

Authors: Xiaoping Yang, Mengshi Dong, Shu Li, Ruimei Chai, Zheng Zhang, Nan Li, Lina Zhang

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 9/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

To compare the diagnostic performance of models based on a combination of contrast-enhanced (CE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) or time-intensity curves (TIC) in diagnosing malignancies of breast lesions.

Methods

A double-blind retrospective study was conducted in 328 patients (254 for training and the following 74 for validation) who underwent dynamic contrast–enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) of the breast with pathological results. Two score models, the DWI model (apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) + morphology + enhanced information) and the TIC model (TIC + morphology + enhanced information), were established with binary logistic regression for mass and non-mass enhancements (NMEs) in the training set. The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) were compared between the two models (DWI model vs. TIC model); p < 0.05 was considered as statistically different. External validation was used.

Results

In the training set, the sensitivities, specificities, and AUCs of the DWI/TIC model were 95.2%/95.8%, 70.8%/47.9%, and 0.932/0.891 for masses, and 94.2%/90.4%, 47.4%/47.4%, and 0.798 (95% CI, 0.686–0.884)/0.802 (95% CI, 0.691–0.887) for NMEs, respectively. The AUC of the DWI model was significantly higher than that of the TIC model (p < 0.05) for masses. In the validation set, the AUCs of the DWI/TIC model were 0.896/0.861 for masses (p < 0.05) and 0.936/0.836 for NMEs (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

Combined with CE MRI, the DWI model was superior or equal to the TIC model in differentiating benign and malignant breast lesions.

Key Points

• Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging played an important role in the diagnosis of breast neoplasms.
• On the basis of contrast-enhanced MRI, the DWI model had significantly higher diagnostic ability than the TIC model in distinguishing benign and malignant masses.
• It would be reasonable to replace the time-consuming TIC with DWI for less scan time and similar diagnostic efficiency.
Literature
1.
Medeiros LR, Duarte CS, Rosa DD et al (2011) Accuracy of magnetic resonance in suspicious breast lesions: a systematic quantitative review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 126(2):273–285PubMed
2.
Orel SG, Schnall MD (2001) MR imaging of the breast for the detection, diagnosis, and staging of breast cancer. Radiology 220(1):13–30PubMed
3.
Kuhl C (2007) The current status of breast MR imaging. Part I. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice. Radiology 244(2):356–378PubMed
4.
Schelfout K, Van Goethem M, Kersschot E et al (2004) Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of breast lesions and effect on treatment. Eur J Surg Oncol 30(5):501–507PubMed
5.
Abe H, Mori N, Tsuchiya K et al (2016) Kinetic analysis of benign and malignant breast lesions with ultrafast dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: comparison with standard kinetic assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 207(5):1159–1166PubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Vreemann S, Rodriguez-Ruiz A, Nickel D et al (2017) Compressed sensing for breast MRI: resolving the trade-off between spatial and temporal resolution. Invest Radiol 52(10):574–582PubMed
7.
Heacock L, Gao Y, Heller SL et al (2017) Comparison of conventional DCE-MRI and a novel golden-angle radial multicoil compressed sensing method for the evaluation of breast lesion conspicuity. J Magn Reson Imaging 45(6):1746–1752PubMed
8.
Mus RD, Borelli C, Bult P et al (2017) Time to enhancement derived from ultrafast breast MRI as a novel parameter to discriminate benign from malignant breast lesions. Eur J Radiol 89:90–96PubMed
9.
Mann RM, Cho N, Moy L (2019) Breast MRI: state of the art. Radiology 292(3):520–536PubMed
10.
Clauser P, Mann R, Athanasiou A et al (2018) A survey by the European Society of Breast Imaging on the utilisation of breast MRI in clinical practice. Eur Radiol 28(5):1909–1918PubMed
11.
Nogueira L, Brandao S, Matos E et al (2014) Diffusion-weighted breast imaging at 3 T: preliminary experience. Clin Radiol 69(4):378–384PubMed
12.
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(7):1791–1802PubMed
13.
Baltzer A, Dietzel M, Kaiser CG, Baltzer PA (2016) Combined reading of contrast enhanced and diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging by using a simple sum score. Eur Radiol 26(3):884–891PubMed
14.
Partridge SC, Nissan N, Rahbar H, Kitsch AE, Sigmund EE (2017) Diffusion-weighted breast MRI: clinical applications and emerging techniques. J Magn Reson Imaging 45(2):337–355PubMed
15.
Baxter GC, Graves MJ, Gilbert FJ, Patterson AJ (2019) A meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of diffusion MRI for breast lesion characterization. Radiology 291(3):632–641PubMed
16.
Liu D, Ba Z, Ni X, Wang L, Yu D, Ma X (2018) Apparent diffusion coefficient to subdivide Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System magnetic resonance imaging (BI-RADS-MRI) category 4 lesions. Med Sci Monit 24:2180–2188PubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Dietzel M, Ellmann S, Schulz-Wendtland R et al (2020) Breast MRI in the era of diffusion weighted imaging: do we still need signal-intensity time curves? Eur Radiol 30(1):47–56PubMed
18.
D’Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB et al (2013) ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System— breast MRI, 5th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston, pp 23–144
19.
Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E (1999) Breast carcinoma: effect of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging on the therapeutic approach. Radiology 213(3):881–888PubMed
20.
Maltez de Almeida JR, Gomes AB, Barros TP, Fahel PE, de Seixas RM (2015) Subcategorization of suspicious breast lesions (BI-RADS category 4) according to MRI criteria: role of dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205(1):222–231PubMed
21.
Baltzer PA, Dietzel M, Kaiser WA (2013) A simple and robust classification tree for differentiation between benign and malignant lesions in MR-mammography. Eur Radiol 23(8):2051–2060PubMed
22.
Dietzel M, Baltzer PAT (2018) How to use the Kaiser score as a clinical decision rule for diagnosis in multiparametric breast MRI: a pictorial essay. Insights Imaging 9(3):325–335PubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Wengert GJ, Pipan F, Almohanna J et al (2020) Impact of the Kaiser score on clinical decisionmaking in BI-RADS 4 mammographic calcifications examined with breast MRI. Eur Radiol 30(3):1451–1459
24.
Woodhams R, Ramadan S, Stanwell P et al (2011) Diffusion-weighted imaging of the breast: principles and clinical applications. Radiographics 31(4):1059–1084PubMed
25.
Pereira FP, Martins G, Figueiredo E et al (2009) Assessment of breast lesions with diffusion-weighted MRI: comparing the use of different b values. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193(4):1030–1035PubMed
26.
Tozaki M, Maruyama K (2009) Diffusion-weighted imaging for characterizing breast lesions prior to biopsy. Magnetom Flash 2:67–70
27.
Rubesova E, Grell AS, De Maertelaer V, Metens T, Chao SL, Lemort M (2006) Quantitative diffusion imaging in breast cancer: a clinical prospective study. J Magn Reson Imaging 24(2):319–324PubMed
28.
Kul S, Cansu A, Alhan E, Dinc H, Gunes G, Reis A (2011) Contribution of diffusion-weighted imaging to dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in characterization of breast tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196(1):210–217PubMed
29.
Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S et al (1999) Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 211(1):101–110PubMed
30.
Schnall MD, Rosten S, Englander S, Orel SG, Nunes LW (2001) A combined architectural and kinetic interpretation model for breast MR images. Acad Radiol 8(7):591–597PubMed
31.
Schnall MD, Blume J, Bluemke DA et al (2006) Diagnostic architectural and dynamic features at breast MR imaging: multicenter study. Radiology 238(1):42–53PubMed
32.
Ma D, Lu F, Zou X et al (2017) Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging as an adjunct to dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI to improve accuracy of the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant breast lesions. Magn Reson Imaging 36:175–179PubMed
33.
Bluemke DA, Gatsonis CA, Chen MH et al (2004) Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy. JAMA 292(22):2735–2742PubMed
34.
Kinkel K, Helbich TH, Esserman LJ et al (2000) Dynamic high-spatial-resolution MR imaging of suspicious breast lesions: diagnostic criteria and interobserver variability. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175(1):35–43PubMed
35.
Baltzer PA, Benndorf M, Dietzel M, Gajda M, Runnebaum IB, Kaiser WA (2010) False-positive findings at contrast-enhanced breast MRI: a BI-RADS descriptor study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194(6):1658–1663PubMed
36.
El Khouli RH, Macura KJ, Jacobs MA et al (2009) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast: quantitative method for kinetic curve type assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193(4):W295–W300PubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Menezes GL, Knuttel FM, Stehouwer BL, Pijnappel RM, van den Bosch MA (2014) Magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer: a literature review and future perspectives. World J Clin Oncol 5(2):61–70PubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Leithner D, Wengert GJ, Helbich TH et al (2018) Clinical role of breast MRI now and going forward. Clin Radiol 73(8):700–714PubMed
39.
Thakran S, Gupta PK, Kabra V et al (2018) Characterization of breast lesion using T1-perfusion magnetic resonance imaging: qualitative vs. quantitative analysis. Diagn Interv Imaging 99(10):633–642PubMed
40.
Choudhery S, Lynch B, Sahoo S, Seiler SJ (2015) Features of non-mass enhancing lesions detected on 1.5 T breast MRI: a radiologic and pathologic analysis. Breast Dis 35(1):13–17PubMed
41.
de Almeida JR, Gomes AB, Barros TP, Fahel PE, Rocha Mde S (2016) Predictive performance of BI-RADS magnetic resonance imaging descriptors in the context of suspicious (category 4) findings. Radiol Bras 49(3):137–143PubMedPubMedCentral
42.
Jansen SA, Fan X, Karczmar GS et al (2008) DCEMRI of breast lesions: is kinetic analysis equally effective for both mass and nonmass-like enhancement? Med Phys 35(7):3102–3109PubMedPubMedCentral
43.
Wenkel E, Uder M, Janka R (2014) Diffusion-weighted breast imaging. Clinical implementation procedure. Radiologe 54(3):224–232PubMed
44.
Kul S, Eyuboglu I, Cansu A, Alhan E (2014) Diagnostic efficacy of the diffusion weighted imaging in the characterization of different types of breast lesions. J Magn Reson Imaging 40(5):1158–1164PubMed
Metadata
Title
Diffusion-weighted imaging or dynamic contrast-enhanced curve: a retrospective analysis of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging–based differential diagnoses of benign and malignant breast lesions
Authors
Xiaoping Yang
Mengshi Dong
Shu Li
Ruimei Chai
Zheng Zhang
Nan Li
Lina Zhang
Publication date
01-09-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 9/2020
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06883-w

Other articles of this Issue 9/2020

European Radiology 9/2020 Go to the issue

Urogenital

High spatiotemporal resolution dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI improves the image-based discrimination of histopathology risk groups of peripheral zone prostate cancer: a supervised machine learning approach

Hepatobiliary-Pancreas

Differentiation of regenerative nodule, dysplastic nodule, and small hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients: a contrast-enhanced ultrasound–based multivariable model analysis

Chest

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) imaging reporting and data system (COVID-RADS) and common lexicon: a proposal based on the imaging data of 37 studies

Neuro

Optic chiasm measurements may be useful markers of anterior optic pathway degeneration in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders

Urogenital

MRI-directed high-frequency (29MhZ) TRUS-guided biopsies: initial results of a single-center study

Magnetic Resonance

Strategically acquired gradient echo (STAGE)-derived MR angiography might be a superior alternative method to time-of-flight MR angiography in visualization of leptomeningeal collaterals