Premium
Quantitative DWI implemented after DCE‐MRI yields increased specificity for BI‐RADS 3 and 4 breast lesions
Author(s) -
Dijkstra Hildebrand,
Dorrius Monique D.,
Wielema Mirjam,
Pijnappel Ruud M.,
Oudkerk Matthijs,
Sijens Paul E.
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
journal of magnetic resonance imaging
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.563
H-Index - 160
eISSN - 1522-2586
pISSN - 1053-1807
DOI - 10.1002/jmri.25331
Subject(s) - intravoxel incoherent motion , medicine , breast mri , effective diffusion coefficient , magnetic resonance imaging , nuclear medicine , radiology , malignancy , diffusion mri , lesion , bi rads , breast cancer , pathology , mammography , cancer
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/mm 2 ) 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.