Open AccessDiffusion weighted imaging of the breast: Performance of standardized breast tumor tissue selection methods in clinical decision making
Author(s) -
Mirjam Wielema,
Paul E. Sijens,
Hildebrand Dijkstra,
Geertruida H. de Bock,
I. G. van Bruggen,
J. E. Siegersma,
E. Langius,
Ruud M. Pijnappel,
Monique D. Dorrius,
Matthijs Oudkerk
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
plos one
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.99
H-Index - 332
ISSN - 1932-6203
DOI - 10.1371/journal.pone.0245930
Subject(s) - reproducibility , intraclass correlation , medicine , breast cancer , nuclear medicine , effective diffusion coefficient , diffusion mri , breast imaging , radiology , magnetic resonance imaging , mammography , mathematics , cancer , statistics
Objectives In breast diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) protocol standardization, it is recently shown that no breast tumor tissue selection (BTTS) method outperformed the others. The purpose of this study is to analyze the feasibility of three fixed-size breast tumor tissue selection (BTTS) methods based on the reproducibility, accuracy and time-measurement in comparison to the largest oval and manual delineation in breast diffusion weighted imaging data. Methods This study is performed with a consecutive dataset of 116 breast lesions (98 malignant) of at least 1.0 cm, scanned in accordance with the EUSOBI breast DWI working group recommendations. Reproducibility of the maximum size manual (BTTS1) and of the maximal size round/oval (BTTS2) methods were compared with three smaller fixed-size circular BTTS methods in the middle of each lesion (BTTS3, 0.12 cm 3 volume) and at lowest apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) (BTTS4, 0.12 cm 3 ; BTTS5, 0.24 cm 3 ). Mean ADC values, intraclass-correlation-coefficients (ICCs), area under the curve (AUC) and measurement times (sec) of the 5 BTTS methods were assessed by two observers. Results Excellent inter- and intra-observer agreement was found for any BTTS (with ICC 0.88–0.92 and 0.92–0.94, respectively). Significant difference in ADCmean between any pair of BTTS methods was shown (p = <0.001–0.009), except for BTTS2 vs. BTTS3 for observer 1 (p = 0.10). AUCs were comparable between BTTS methods, with highest AUC for BTTS2 (0.89–0.91) and lowest for BTTS4 (0.76–0.85). However, as an indicator of clinical feasibility, BTTS2-3 showed shortest measurement times (10–15 sec) compared to BTTS1, 4–5 (19–39 sec). Conclusion The performance of fixed-size BTTS methods, as a potential tool for clinical decision making, shows equal AUC but shorter ADC measurement time compared to manual or oval whole lesion measurements. The advantage of a fixed size BTTS method is the excellent reproducibility. A central fixed breast tumor tissue volume of 0.12 cm 3 is the most feasible method for use in clinical practice.