Journals / Meme Sağlığı Dergisi / 2013 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1

The role of diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging in differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions

Benign ve malign meme lezyonlarının ayrımında difüzyon ağırlıklı manyetik rezonans görüntülemenin yeri

Pages
10–17
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

We suggest the routine use of DWI in breast MRI.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose: The purpose of this study is to investigate the role of diffusion- weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: A total of 40 breast lesions (28 benign, 12 malig- nant) were scanned by routine dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and diffusion weighted imaging (DWI).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:We suggest the routine use of DWI in breast MRI.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to investigate the role of diffusion- weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions. Materials and Methods: A total of 40 breast lesions (28 benign, 12 malig- nant) were scanned by routine dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and diffusion weighted imaging (DWI). The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values of the lesions and normal breast tissue were measured and compared between benign and malignant groups. Also, lesions in benign and malignant groups were seperated according to dynamic contrast enhancement patterns and ADC values were compared. The results were evaluated at different cut-off values by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Results: The mean ADC values were calculated as 0.83 ± 0.3x10-3 mm2/s in malignant lesions, and 1.35 ± 0.2 x10-3 mm2/s in benign lesions. The mean ADC value of the malignant lesions was statistically significantly lower than that of the benign lesions (p<0.001). The mean ADC value of normal fibrog- landular tissue was significantly lower in malignant group than that of be- nign group (p<0.001). When the lesions were seperated according to contrast enhancement &#8211; time curves, there were type 1 (n=19), type 2 (n=7) and type 3 (n=1) lesions in benign group and type 2 (n=5) and type 3 (n=7) lesions in malignant group. There was no contrast enhancement in one lesion in the benign group. No significant difference was found between the ADC values of type 1 and type 2 lesions in benign group and type 2 and type 3 lesions in malignant group (p>0.05). In ROC curve analysis, when the cut-off value was taken as 1.01 ± 0.25x10-3 mm2/s (b=1000), the sensitivity was 92.3%, the specificity was 92.5%, and the positive predictive value (PPV) was 85.7%. Conclusions: In differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions, ADC value is a helpful parameter, that could be used together with the morpho- logical criteria and the dynamic contrast enhancement pattern of the lesions. We suggest the routine use of DWI in breast MRI.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, difüzyon ağırlıklı manyetik rezonans görüntül- emenin (MRG) benign ve malign meme lezyonlarının ayrımındaki yerinin araştırılmasıdır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Toplam 40 meme lezyonuna (28 benign, 12 malign) yöne- lik rutin kontrastlı dinamik MRG ve difüzyon ağırlıklı görüntüleme (DAG) uygulandı. Lezyonların ve normal meme dokusunun “apparent diffusion coefficient” (ADC) değerleri ölçülerek benign ve malign gruplar arasında karşılaştırıldı. Ayrıca, malign ve benign gruplardaki lezyonlar dinamik kon- trastlanma paternlerine göre ayrılarak ADC değerleri karşılaştırıldı. Sonuçlar, farklı eşik değerlerinde “receiver operating characteristic” (ROC) eğrisi analizi ile değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Malign lezyonların ortalama ADC değeri 0.83 ± 0.3x10-3 mm2/s; benign lezyonların 1.35 ± 0.2x10-3 mm2/s olarak hesaplandı. Malign lezyonların ortalama ADC değeri, benign lezyonların ortalama ADC değerinden istatiksel anlamlı olarak düşüktü (p 0.05). ROC eğrisi analizinde, eşik değeri 1.01 ± 0.25x10-3 mm2/s (b=1000) kabul edildiğinde duyarlılık %92.3, özgüllük %92.5 ve pozitif öngörü değeri (PPV) %85.7 olarak bulundu. Sonuç: Benign ve malign meme lezyonlarının ayırt edilmesinde ADC değeri, morfolojik kriterler ve lezyonların dinamik kontrastlanma eğrileri ile birlikte kullanılabilecek yardımcı bir parametredir. DAG’nin meme MRG’sinde rutin olarak kullanılmasını önermekteyiz.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZER, N. Ö., OYSU, A. S., BÜKTE, Y., SARICA, Ö., TİRYAKİ, A. Ö., KULALI, F. (2013). The role of diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging in differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions. Meme Sağlığı Dergisi, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1, 10–17. https://ajindex.com/articles/278322

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (7)

  1. Kopans DB. The positive predictive value of mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992;158:521-526. (PMID: 1310825
  2. Aberle DR, Chiles C, Gatsonis C, Hillman BJ, Johnson CD, McClennan BL, Mitchell DG, Pisano ED, Schnall MD, Sorensen AG; American College of Radiology Imaging Network. Imaging and cancer: research strategy of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network. Radiology 2005;235:741-751.(PMID: 15914473
  3. Leung JW. Screening mammography reduces morbidity of breast cancer treatment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:1508-1509. (PMID: 15855106
  4. Mahesh M. AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: digital mammography: an overview. Radiographics 2004;24:1747-1760. (PMID: 15537982) 5.Bedrosian I, Mick R, Orel SG, Schnall M, Reynolds C, Spitz FR, Callans LS, Buzby GP, Rosato EF, Fraker DL, Czerniecki BJ. Changes in the surgical management of patients with breast carcinoma based on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 2003;98:468-473. (PMID: 12879462) 6.Mann RM, Kuhl CK, Kinkel K, Boetes C. Breast MRI: guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging. Eur Radiol 2008;18:1307-1318. (PMID: 18389253
  5. Ikeda DM, Baker DR, Daniel BL. Magnetic resonance imaging of breast cancer: clinical indications and breast MRI reporting system. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000;12:975-983. (PMID: 11105039
  6. Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S, Leutner C, Wardelmann E, Gieseke J, Schild HH. Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 1999;211:101-110. (PMID: 10189459) 9.Macura KJ, Ouwerkerk R, Jacobs MA, Bluemke DA. Patterns of enhancement on breast MR images: interpretation and imaging pitfalls. Radiographics 2006;26:1719-1734. (PMID: 17102046) 10.Schnall MD, Blume J, Bluemke DA, DeAngelis GA, DeBruhl N, Harms S, Heywang-Köbrunner SH, Hylton N, Kuhl CK, Pisano ED, Causer P, Schnitt SJ, Thickman D, Stelling CB, Weatherall PT, Lehman C, Gatsonis CA. Diagnostic architectural and dynamic features at breast MR imaging: multicenter study. Radiology 2006;238:42-53. (PMID: 16373758) 11.Szabó BK, Aspelin P, Wiberg MK, Boné B. Dynamic MR imaging of the breast. Analysis of kinetic and morphologic diagnostic criteria. Acta Radiol 2003;44:379-386. (PMID: 12846687
  7. Yabuuchi H, Matsuo Y, Kamitani T, Setoguchi T, Okafuji T, Soeda H, Sakai S, Hatakenaka M, Kubo M, Tokunaga E, Yamamoto H, Honda H. Non-mass-like enhancement on contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging: lesion characterization us