Journals / Balkan Medical Journal / 2016 / Cilt: 33 - Sayı: 3

Value of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Values in Differentiating Malignant and Benign Breast Lesions

Pages
294–300
Publication Date
2022-10-11
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)

Overall, 35 lesions out of 58 were histopathologicallyproven to be malignant.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)has become a diagnostic and problem solving methodfor the breast examinations in addition to conventionalbreast examination methods.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Diffusion-weightedimaging (DWI) adds valuable information to conventionalMRI.Aims: Our aim was to show the impact of apparentdiffusion coefficient (ADC) values acquired withDWI to differentiate benign and malignant breast lesions.Study Design: Diagnostic accuracy study.Methods: Forty-six women with 58 breast masses(35 malignant, 23 benign) were examined on a 1.5 Tclinical MRI scanner.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Overall, 35 lesions out of 58 were histopathologicallyproven to be malignant.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)has become a diagnostic and problem solving methodfor the breast examinations in addition to conventionalbreast examination methods. Diffusion-weightedimaging (DWI) adds valuable information to conventionalMRI.Aims: Our aim was to show the impact of apparentdiffusion coefficient (ADC) values acquired withDWI to differentiate benign and malignant breast lesions.Study Design: Diagnostic accuracy study.Methods: Forty-six women with 58 breast masses(35 malignant, 23 benign) were examined on a 1.5 Tclinical MRI scanner. The morphologic characteristicsof the lesions on conventional MRI sequences andcontrast uptake pattern were assessed. ADC valuesof both lesions and normal breast parenchyma weremeasured. The ADC values obtained were statisticallycompared with the histopathologic results usingPaired Samples t-Test.Results: Multiple lesions were detected in 12 (26%)of the patients, while only one lesion was detected in34 (74%). Overall, 35 lesions out of 58 were histopathologicallyproven to be malignant. In the dynamiccontrast-enhanced series, 5 of the malignant lesionswere type 1, while 8 benign lesions revealed eithertype 2 or 3 time signal intensity curves (85% sensitivity,56% spesifity). Mean ADC values were significantlydifferent in malignant vs. benign lesions.(1.04±0.29x10-3 cm2/sec vs. 1.61±0.50x10-3 cm2/secfor the malignant and benign lesions, respectively,p=0.03). A cut-off value of 1.30x10-3 mm2/sec forADC detected with receiver operating characteristicanalysis yielded 89.1% sensitivity and 100% specificityfor the differentiation between benign and malignantlesions.Conclusion: ADC values improve the diagnostic accuracyof solid breast lesions when evaluated with theconventional MRI sequences. Therefore, DWI shouldbe incorporated to routine breast MRI protocol.

🔖

Cite This Article

OYAR, O., KOÇ, G., SEZGİN, G., BOZKURT, T. B., GELAL, M. F., ALTAY, C. (2022). Value of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Values in Differentiating Malignant and Benign Breast Lesions. Balkan Medical Journal, Cilt: 33 - Sayı: 3, 294–300. https://ajindex.com/articles/461369

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Sasieni PD, Shelton J, Ormiston-Smith N, Thomson CS, Silcocks PB. What is the lifetime risk of developing cancer? The effect of adjusting for multiple primaries. Br J Cancer 2011
  2. [CrossRef] 2. Malone KE, Daling JR, Thompson JD, O'Brien CA, Francisco LV, Ostrander EA. BRCA1 mutations and breast cancer in the general population: analyses in women before age 35 years and in women before age 45 years with first-degree family history. JAMA 1998
  3. [CrossRef] 3. Soerjomataram I, Louwman WJ, van der Sangen MJC, Roumen RM, Coebergh JW. Increased risk of second malignancies after in situ breast carcinoma in a population based registry. Br J Cancer 2006
  4. [CrossRef] 4. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg R, Rutter CM et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2003
  5. [CrossRef] 5. Rosenberg RD, Hunt WC, Williamson MR, Gilliland FD, Wiest PW, Kelsey CA et al. Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183,134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Radiology 1998
  6. [CrossRef] 6. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V. Likelihood ratios for modern screening mammography. Risk of breast cancer based on age and mammographic interpretation. JAMA 1996
  7. [CrossRef] 7. Wendie A. Berg, Jeffrey D. Blume, Jean B. Cormack, Ellen B. Mendelson, Daniel Lehrer, Marcela Böhm-Vélez et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008
  8. [CrossRef] 8. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27.825 patient evaluations. Radiolgy 2002
  9. [CrossRef] 9. Rankin C. MRI of the breast. Br J Radiol 2000
  10. [CrossRef] 10. Lee CH. Problem solving MR imaging of the breast. Radiol Clin North Am 2004
  11. [CrossRef] 11. Macura KJ, Ouwerkerk R, Jacobs MA, Bluemke DA. Patterns of enhancement on breast MR images: interpretation and imaging pitfalls. Radiographics 2006
  12. [CrossRef] 12. Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E. Breast carcinoma: effect of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging on the therapeutic appr