Determining the Diagnostic Value of DWIBS in the Diagnosis of Breast Lesions Compared to Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI: A Retrospective Observational Study

被引:0
作者
Farghadani, Maryam [1 ]
Mozafari, Safura [2 ]
Riahinejad, Maryam [1 ]
Haghighi, Mashid [1 ]
Samani, Reza Eshraghi [3 ]
Taravati, Amir Mohammad [4 ]
Rostami, Koushan [5 ]
Shahrokh, Seyedeh Ghazal [4 ]
Sadeghian, Arezoo [1 ]
机构
[1] Isfahan Univ Med Sci, Sch Med, Dept Radiol, Hezar Jerib Ave, Esfahan, Iran
[2] Isfahan Univ Med Sci, Sch Med, Dept Emergency Med, Esfahan, Iran
[3] Isfahan Univ Med Sci, Sch Med, Dept Radiol, Esfahan, Iran
[4] Isfahan Univ Med Sci, Sch Med, Dept Radiol, Esfahan, Iran
[5] Yazd Univ Med Sci, Sch Med, Dept Radiol, Yazd, Iran
来源
ADVANCED BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH | 2025年 / 14卷 / 01期
关键词
Breast cancer; diffusion magnetic resonance imaging; magnetic resonance imaging; SIGNAL SUPPRESSION DWIBS; BENIGN; CANCER;
D O I
10.4103/abr.abr_283_24
中图分类号
R-3 [医学研究方法]; R3 [基础医学];
学科分类号
1001 ;
摘要
Background:Diffusion-weighted imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS) is a new imaging tool for the diagnosis of breast lesions. This study aims to compare DWIBS with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) sequences.Materials and Methods:Eighty consecutive patients underwent both CE-MRI and DWIBS images. DWIBS was assessed qualitatively and quantitatively using the apparent diffusion coefficient mapping. A threshold of 1.44 x 10-3 mm2/s was considered as a cutoff value between malignant and benign lesions. CE-MRI images were evaluated based on a combination of kinetic and morphological information and reported using Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System lexicon. Statistical analysis was performed for both sequences based on pathologic findings as a gold standard.Results:Fifty-five out of 80 lesions (69%) were benign, and 25 malignant lesions (31%) have been reported. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for CE-MRI were 100, 38, 42, and 100%, respectively, and those for DWIBS were 77, 70, 53, and 87%, respectively. By comparing DWIBS and CE-MRI data, no statistically significant difference was reported.Conclusion:DWIBS can be used as an effective alternative for breast CE-MRI in cases of contradictions of IV contrast injection.
引用
收藏
页数:5
相关论文
共 35 条
  • [1] Alviri MR., 2022, Front Biomed Technol, P9
  • [2] Fast and Noninvasive Characterization of Suspicious Lesions Detected at Breast Cancer X-Ray Screening: Capability of Diffusion-weighted MR Imaging with MIPs
    Bickelhaupt, Sebastian
    Laun, Frederik B.
    Tesdorff, Jana
    Lederer, Wolfgang
    Daniel, Heidi
    Stieber, Anne
    Delorme, Stefan
    Schlemmer, Heinz-Peter
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2016, 278 (03) : 689 - 697
  • [3] Abbreviated MRI Protocols for Detecting Breast Cancer in Women with Dense Breasts
    Chen, Shuang-Qing
    Huang, Min
    Shen, Yu-Ying
    Liu, Chen-Lu
    Xu, Chuan-Xiao
    [J]. KOREAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2017, 18 (03) : 470 - 475
  • [4] Prognostic implication of PD-L1 expression and associated tumor infiltrating lymphocytes in metastatic breast cancer
    Darwish, Mohamed M.
    Riad, Atef Y.
    Salem, Dina A.
    Essa, Ahmad E.
    Shakweer, Marwa M.
    Sherif, Diaa Eldin M.
    [J]. IMMUNOPATHOLOGIA PERSA, 2022, 8 (01):
  • [5] Ehsanpour A., 2022, J Prev Epidemiol, V7, pe12.
  • [6] El-Samahy MAA-M., 2017, Egypt J Hosp Med, V68, P1279
  • [7] Using quantitative features extracted from T2-weighted MRI to improve breast MRI computer-aided diagnosis (CAD)
    Gallego-Ortiz, Cristina
    Martel, Anne L.
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2017, 12 (11):
  • [8] Differentiation of clinically benign and malignant breast lesions using diffusion-weighted imaging
    Guo, Y
    Cai, YQ
    Cai, ZL
    Gao, YG
    An, NY
    Ma, L
    Mahankali, S
    Gao, JH
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2002, 16 (02) : 172 - 178
  • [9] Hatakenaka M., 2008, MAGN RESON MED SCI, V7, P23, DOI DOI 10.2463/MRMS.7.23
  • [10] Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breast
    Helbich, TH
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2000, 34 (03) : 208 - 219