Quantitative DWI implemented after DCE‐MRI yields increased specificity for BI‐RADS 3 and 4 breast lesions. Issue 6 (7th June 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Dijkstra, Hildebrand; Dorrius, Monique D.; Wielema, Mirjam; Pijnappel, Ruud M.; Oudkerk, Matthijs; Sijens, Paul E.
• Is Part Of: Journal of magnetic resonance imaging. Volume 44:Issue 6(2016)
• Page Start: 1642
• Page End: 1649
• Publication Date: 2016-06-07
• Subjects: diffusion weighted MRI -- breast -- cancer -- diagnostic techniques and procedures; Magnetic resonance imaging -- Periodicals; 616
• DOI: 10.1002/jmri.25331
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1053-1807

Abstract

Abstract : 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 (Dslow ), microperfusion (Dfast ), and the fraction of Dfast (ffast ). The sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), and negative predictive value (NPV) based on only IVIM parameters combined in parallel (Dslow, Dfast, and ffast ), 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.