Diffusion-weighted imaging or dynamic contrast-enhanced curve: a retrospective analysis of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging-based differential diagnoses of benign and malignant breast lesions

被引:26
作者
Yang, Xiaoping [1 ]
Dong, Mengshi [1 ]
Li, Shu [1 ]
Chai, Ruimei [1 ]
Zhang, Zheng [1 ]
Li, Nan [1 ]
Zhang, Lina [1 ]
机构
[1] China Med Univ, Dept Radiol, Affiliated Hosp 1, 155 Nanjing St, Shenyang 110001, Liaoning, Peoples R China
关键词
Breast neoplasms; Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging; Magnetic resonance imaging; KINETIC-ANALYSIS; CATEGORY; 4; MRI; ACCURACY; CRITERIA; CANCER; TIME;
D O I
10.1007/s00330-020-06883-w
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Objective To compare the diagnostic performance of models based on a combination of contrast-enhanced (CE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) or time-intensity curves (TIC) in diagnosing malignancies of breast lesions. Methods A double-blind retrospective study was conducted in 328 patients (254 for training and the following 74 for validation) who underwent dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) of the breast with pathological results. Two score models, the DWI model (apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) + morphology + enhanced information) and the TIC model (TIC + morphology + enhanced information), were established with binary logistic regression for mass and non-mass enhancements (NMEs) in the training set. The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) were compared between the two models (DWI model vs. TIC model); p < 0.05 was considered as statistically different. External validation was used. Results In the training set, the sensitivities, specificities, and AUCs of the DWI/TIC model were 95.2%/95.8%, 70.8%/47.9%, and 0.932/0.891 for masses, and 94.2%/90.4%, 47.4%/47.4%, and 0.798 (95% CI, 0.686-0.884)/0.802 (95% CI, 0.691-0.887) for NMEs, respectively. The AUC of the DWI model was significantly higher than that of the TIC model (p < 0.05) for masses. In the validation set, the AUCs of the DWI/TIC model were 0.896/0.861 for masses (p < 0.05) and 0.936/0.836 for NMEs (p > 0.05). Conclusions Combined with CE MRI, the DWI model was superior or equal to the TIC model in differentiating benign and malignant breast lesions.
引用
收藏
页码:4795 / 4805
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
[21]   Imaging Features Derived From Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Differentiate Malignant From Benign Breast Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [J].
Zhang, Jie ;
Wang, Lin ;
Liu, Hai-Feng .
JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY, 2022, 46 (03) :383-391
[22]   The role of dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the female pelvis [J].
Salaa, Evis ;
Rockall, Andrea ;
Rangarajan, Deepa ;
Kubik-Huch, Rahel A. .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2010, 76 (03) :367-385
[23]   Diagnostic efficacy of diffusion-weighted imaging and semiquantitative and quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in salivary gland tumors [J].
Gokce, Erkan ;
Beyhan, Murat .
WORLD JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2023, 15 (01) :20-31
[24]   Comparative Evaluation of Superb Microvascular Imaging and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Differentiating Benign and Malignant Breast Masses [J].
Yitik, Ahmet Yasin ;
Sabir, Nuran ;
Yilmaz, Sevda .
JOURNAL OF ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE, 2025, 44 (06) :1047-1058
[25]   Improved Performance in Differentiating Benign from Malignant Sinonasal Tumors Using Diffusion-weighted Combined with Dynamic Contrast-enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging [J].
Wang XinYan ;
Yan Fei ;
Hao Hui ;
Wu JianXing ;
Chen QingHua ;
Xian JunFang .
中华医学杂志英文版, 2015, 128 (05) :586-592
[26]   Hepatic pseudolymphoma: imaging features on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and diffusion-weighted imaging [J].
Zhou, Yang ;
Wang, XiaoLin ;
Xu, Chen ;
Zhou, GuoFeng ;
Zeng, MengSu ;
Xu, PengJu .
ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2018, 43 (09) :2288-2294
[27]   Hepatic pseudolymphoma: imaging features on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and diffusion-weighted imaging [J].
Yang Zhou ;
XiaoLin Wang ;
Chen Xu ;
GuoFeng Zhou ;
MengSu Zeng ;
PengJu Xu .
Abdominal Radiology, 2018, 43 :2288-2294
[28]   Value of Diffusion-Weighted Imaging and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Prediction of Treatment Outcomes in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma [J].
Paprad, Tunchanok ;
Lertbutsayanukul, Chawalit ;
Jittapiromsak, Nutchawan .
JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY, 2022, 46 (04) :664-672
[29]   Contrast-Enhanced Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Compared With Contrast-Enhanced Mammography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Assessment of Breast Lesions A Pilot Study [J].
Clauser, Paola ;
Poetsch, Nina ;
Santonocito, Ambra ;
Ferrara, Francesca ;
Zeitouni, Layla ;
Hoernig, Mathias ;
Weber, Michael ;
Baltzer, Pascal A. T. ;
Helbich, Thomas H. .
INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 2025, 60 (06) :369-375
[30]   Differentiation of subtypes of renal cell carcinoma: dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging versus diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging [J].
Yamamoto, Akira ;
Tamada, Tsutomu ;
Ito, Katsuyoshi ;
Sone, Teruki ;
Kanki, Akihiko ;
Tanimoto, Daigo ;
Noda, Yasufumi .
CLINICAL IMAGING, 2017, 41 :53-58