High-resolution diffusion-weighted imaging compared with conventional diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast- enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with regard to image quality and assessment of breast cancer morphology

metin, yavuz; Orhan Metin, Nurgul; Kul, Sibel; TAŞÇI, Filiz; özdemir, oğuzhan; kupeli, ali

doi:10.5152/dir.2022.21362

High-resolution diffusion-weighted imaging compared with conventional diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast- enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with regard to image quality and assessment of breast cancer morphology

Yavuz METİN, (Ankara Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Radyoloji Anabilim Dalı, Ankara, Türkiye)

Nurgül ORHAN METİN, (Beytepe Murat Er Ölür Devlet Hastanesi, Radyoloji Kliniği, Ankara, Türkiye)

Sibel KUL, (Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Radyoloji Anabilim Dalı,Trabzon, Türkiye;)

Filiz TAŞÇI, (Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Radyoloji Anabilim Dalı, Rize, Türkiye)

Oğuzhan ÖZDEMİR, (Keçiören Medical Park Hastanesi, Radyoloji Kliniği, Ankara, Türkiye)

Ali KÜPELİ (Trabzon Kanuni Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Radyoloji Kliniği, Trabzon, Türkiye)

Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology

6 0

Yıl: 2023 Cilt: 29 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 251 - 259 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.5152/dir.2022.21362 İndeks Tarihi: 09-05-2023

High-resolution diffusion-weighted imaging compared with conventional diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast- enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with regard to image quality and assessment of breast cancer morphology

Öz:

PURPOSE To evaluate the image quality and tumor morphology depiction ability of high resolution (HR) dif- fusion-weighted imaging (f-DWI) in comparison to conventional DWI (c-DWI) and dynamic con- trast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) in the primary breast cancer setting. METHODS The f-DWI, c-DWI, and DCE-MRIs of 160 malignant breast masses were evaluated retrospectively by two independent radiologists. Data on image quality [sharpness, distortion, and perceived signal- to-noise ratio (SNR)], apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value, lesion size, and tumor morphology (shape, margin, and internal pattern) obtained on f-DWI, c-DWI, and DCE-MRI were compared. Con- sistency between the readers and imaging methods for morphological parameters was analyzed. RESULTS The ADC values measured on f-DWI were significantly lower than those measured on c-DWI for both readers (P < 0.001 for each), whereas mean lesion size was significantly larger in c-DWI than in f-DWI and DCE-MRI for both readers (P < 0.001 for each). Higher consistency values were obtained for f-DWI compared with c-DWI when correlated with DCE-MRI for each morphological parame- ter. The least distorted images were obtained using DCE-MRI compared with c-DWI and f-DWI for both readers, whereas the highest distortion scores were obtained using c-DWI. Sharpness and per- ceived SNR scores were rated as significantly higher for f-DWI and DCE-MRI images compared with c-DWI by both readers (P < 0.001 for all). The concordance between c-DWI and DCE-MRI was fair to slight (κ = 0.15 to 0.41), whereas concordance between f-DWI and DCE-MRI was significantly better (κ = 0.68 to 0.87) for each reader and for all morphological parameters (P < 0.001). The highest con- cordance between the readers was achieved in margin assessment (κ = 0.87 to 0.89) regardless of the MRI method, followed by shape and internal pattern parameters (κ = 0.63 to 0.79). CONCLUSION The results demonstrated that f-DWI produces higher-quality images than c-DWI, enabling the morphological features to be identified in similar detail to that offered by HR DCE-MRI. Accordingly, f-DWI, as a method that highly correlates with DCE in determining the morphological character- istics of breast cancers, seems to have potential in the evaluation of breast tumors in patients for whom the use of contrast media is contraindicated.

Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık

1. Partridge SC, Gibbs JE, Lu Y, et al. MRI measurements of breast tumor volume predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and recurrence-free survival. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184(6):1774-1781. [Crossref]
2. Wilmes LJ, McLaughlin RL, Newitt DC, et al. High-resolution diffusion-weighted imaging for monitoring breast cancer treatment response. Acad Radiol. 2013;20(5):581-589. [CrossRef]
3. Orel SG. High-resolution MR imaging for the detection, diagnosis, and staging of breast cancer. Radiographics. 1998;18(4):903-912. [CrossRef]
4. Kuhl CK, Schild HH, Morakkabati N. Dynamic bilateral contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast: trade-off between spatial and temporal resolution. Radiology. 2005;236(3):789-800. [CrossRef]
5. Woodhams R, Ramadan S, Stanwell P, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of the breast: principles and clinical applications. Radiographics. 2011;31(4):1059-1084. [CrossRef]
6. Ei Khouli RH, Jacobs MA, Mezban SD, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging improves the diagnostic accuracy of conventional 3.0-T breast MR imaging. Radiology. 2010;256(1):64- 73. [CrossRef]
7. Mansfield P. Multi-planar image-formation using NMR spin echoes. J Phys C: Solid State Phys. 1977;10(3):55-58. [CrossRef]
8. Turner R, Le Bihan D. Single-shot diffusion imaging at 2.0 Tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1990;86(3):445-452. [CrossRef]
9. Zaharchuk G, Saritas EU, Andre JB, et al. Reduced field-of-view diffusion imaging of the human spinal cord: comparison with conventional single-shot echo- planar imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011;32(5):813-820. [CrossRef]
10. Karampinos DC, Van AT, Olivero WC, Georgiadis JG, Sutton BP. High resolution reduced-FOV diffusion tensor imaging of the human pons with multi-shot variable density spiral at 3T. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2008;2008:5761-5764. [CrossRef]
11. Singer L, Wilmes LJ, Saritas EU, et al. High- resolution diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in patients with locally advanced breast cancer. Acad Radiol. 2012;19(5):526-534. [CrossRef]
12. Saritas EU, Cunningham CH, Lee JH, Han ET, Nishimura DG. DWI of the spinal cord with reduced FOV single-shot EPI. Magn Reson Med. 2008;60(2):468-473.
13. Finsterbusch J. High-resolution diffusion tensor imaging with inner field-of-view EPI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;29(4):987-993. [CrossRef]
14. Wilm BJ, Svensson J, Henning A, Pruessmann KP, Boesiger P, Kollias SS. Reduced field-of- view MRI using outer volume suppression for spinal cord diffusion imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2007;57(3):625-630. [CrossRef]
15. Wheeler-Kingshott CA, Hickman SJ, Parker GJ, et al. Investigating cervical spinal cord structure using axial diffusion tensor imaging. Neuroimage. 2002;16(1):93-102. [CrossRef]
16. Kang BJ, Lipson JA, Planey KR, et al. Rim sign in breast lesions on diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: diagnostic accuracy and clinical usefulness. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;41(3):616-623. [CrossRef]
17. Kul S, Metin Y, Kul M, Metin N, Eyuboglu I, Ozdemir O. Assessment of breast mass morphology with diffusion-weighted MRI: Beyond apparent diffusion coefficient. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018;48(6):1668-1677. [CrossRef]
18. Barentsz MW, Taviani V, Chang JM, et al. Assessment of tumor morphology on diffusion-weighted (DWI) breast MRI: diagnostic value of reduced field of view DWI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;42(6):1656-1665. [CrossRef]
19. Radovic N, Ivanac G, Divjak E, Biondic I, Bulum A, Brkljacic B. Evaluation of breast cancer morphology using diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: intermethod and interobserver agreement. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019;49(5):1381-1390. [CrossRef]
20. Kishimoto AO, Kataoka M, Iima M, et al. The comparison of high-resolution diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) with high-resolution contrast-enhanced MRI in the evaluation of breast cancers. Magn Reson Imaging. 2020;71:161-169. [CrossRef]
21. American College of Radiology. ACR BI-RADS magnetic resonance imaging. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology. Website: www. acr.org. Published 2013. Accessed June 20, 2016. [CrossRef]
22. McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22(3):276-282. [CrossRef]
23. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155-163. Erratum in: J Chiropr Med. 2017;16(4):346. [CrossRef]
24. Liu PF, Debatin JF, Caduff RF, Kacl G, Garzoli E, Krestin GP. Improved diagnostic accuracy in dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of the breast by combined quantitative and qualitative analysis. Br J Radiol. 1998;71(845):501-509. [CrossRef]
25. Goto M, Ito H, Akazawa K, et al. Diagnosis of breast tumors by contrast-enhanced MR imaging: comparison between the diagnostic performance of dynamic enhancement patterns and morphologic features. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;25(1):104-112. [CrossRef]
26. Park MJ, Cha ES, Kang BJ, Ihn YK, Baik JH. The role of diffusion-weighted imaging and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values for breast tumors. Korean J Radiol. 2007;8(5):390- 396. [CrossRef]
27. Yabuuchi H, Matsuo Y, Okafuji T, et al. Enhanced mass on contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging: lesion characterization using combination of dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR images. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;28(5):1157-1165. [CrossRef]
28. Kishimoto AO, Kataoka M, Iima M, et al. Evaluation of malignant breast lesions using high-resolution readout-segmented diffusion-weighted echo-planar imaging: comparison with pathology. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2021;20(2):204-215. [CrossRef]
29. Dong H, Li Y, Li H, Wang B, Hu B. Study of the reduced field-of-view diffusion-weighted imaging of the breast. Clin Breast Cancer. 2014;14(4):265-271. [CrossRef]
30. McKay JA, Church AL, Rubin N, et al. A comparison of methods for high-spatial- resolution diffusion-weighted imaging in breast MRI. Radiology. 2020;297(2):304-312. [CrossRef]
31. Wisner DJ, Rogers N, Deshpande VS, et al. High-resolution diffusion-weighted imaging for the separation of benign from malignant BI-RADS 4/5 lesions found on breast MRI at 3T. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014;40(3):674-681. [CrossRef]
32. Yamaguchi K, Nakazono T, Egashira R, et al. Diagnostic performance of diffusion tensor imaging with readout-segmented echo- planar imaging for invasive breast cancer: correlation of ADC and FA with pathological prognostic markers. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2017;16(3):245-252. [CrossRef]

APA	metin y, Orhan Metin N, Kul S, TAŞÇI F, özdemir o, kupeli a (2023). High-resolution diffusion-weighted imaging compared with conventional diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast- enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with regard to image quality and assessment of breast cancer morphology. , 251 - 259. 10.5152/dir.2022.21362
Chicago	metin yavuz,Orhan Metin Nurgul,Kul Sibel,TAŞÇI Filiz,özdemir oğuzhan,kupeli ali High-resolution diffusion-weighted imaging compared with conventional diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast- enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with regard to image quality and assessment of breast cancer morphology. (2023): 251 - 259. 10.5152/dir.2022.21362
MLA	metin yavuz,Orhan Metin Nurgul,Kul Sibel,TAŞÇI Filiz,özdemir oğuzhan,kupeli ali High-resolution diffusion-weighted imaging compared with conventional diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast- enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with regard to image quality and assessment of breast cancer morphology. , 2023, ss.251 - 259. 10.5152/dir.2022.21362
AMA	metin y,Orhan Metin N,Kul S,TAŞÇI F,özdemir o,kupeli a High-resolution diffusion-weighted imaging compared with conventional diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast- enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with regard to image quality and assessment of breast cancer morphology. . 2023; 251 - 259. 10.5152/dir.2022.21362
Vancouver	metin y,Orhan Metin N,Kul S,TAŞÇI F,özdemir o,kupeli a High-resolution diffusion-weighted imaging compared with conventional diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast- enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with regard to image quality and assessment of breast cancer morphology. . 2023; 251 - 259. 10.5152/dir.2022.21362
IEEE	metin y,Orhan Metin N,Kul S,TAŞÇI F,özdemir o,kupeli a "High-resolution diffusion-weighted imaging compared with conventional diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast- enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with regard to image quality and assessment of breast cancer morphology." , ss.251 - 259, 2023. 10.5152/dir.2022.21362
ISNAD	metin, yavuz vd. "High-resolution diffusion-weighted imaging compared with conventional diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast- enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with regard to image quality and assessment of breast cancer morphology". (2023), 251-259. https://doi.org/10.5152/dir.2022.21362

APA	metin y, Orhan Metin N, Kul S, TAŞÇI F, özdemir o, kupeli a (2023). High-resolution diffusion-weighted imaging compared with conventional diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast- enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with regard to image quality and assessment of breast cancer morphology. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, 29(2), 251 - 259. 10.5152/dir.2022.21362
Chicago	metin yavuz,Orhan Metin Nurgul,Kul Sibel,TAŞÇI Filiz,özdemir oğuzhan,kupeli ali High-resolution diffusion-weighted imaging compared with conventional diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast- enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with regard to image quality and assessment of breast cancer morphology. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology 29, no.2 (2023): 251 - 259. 10.5152/dir.2022.21362
MLA	metin yavuz,Orhan Metin Nurgul,Kul Sibel,TAŞÇI Filiz,özdemir oğuzhan,kupeli ali High-resolution diffusion-weighted imaging compared with conventional diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast- enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with regard to image quality and assessment of breast cancer morphology. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, vol.29, no.2, 2023, ss.251 - 259. 10.5152/dir.2022.21362
AMA	metin y,Orhan Metin N,Kul S,TAŞÇI F,özdemir o,kupeli a High-resolution diffusion-weighted imaging compared with conventional diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast- enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with regard to image quality and assessment of breast cancer morphology. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology. 2023; 29(2): 251 - 259. 10.5152/dir.2022.21362
Vancouver	metin y,Orhan Metin N,Kul S,TAŞÇI F,özdemir o,kupeli a High-resolution diffusion-weighted imaging compared with conventional diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast- enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with regard to image quality and assessment of breast cancer morphology. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology. 2023; 29(2): 251 - 259. 10.5152/dir.2022.21362
IEEE	metin y,Orhan Metin N,Kul S,TAŞÇI F,özdemir o,kupeli a "High-resolution diffusion-weighted imaging compared with conventional diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast- enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with regard to image quality and assessment of breast cancer morphology." Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, 29, ss.251 - 259, 2023. 10.5152/dir.2022.21362
ISNAD	metin, yavuz vd. "High-resolution diffusion-weighted imaging compared with conventional diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast- enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with regard to image quality and assessment of breast cancer morphology". Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology 29/2 (2023), 251-259. https://doi.org/10.5152/dir.2022.21362