Comparing Lesion Conspicuity and ADC Reliability in High-resolution Diffusion-weighted Imaging of the Breast.

Mami Iima, Rena Nakayama, Masako Kataoka, Martins Otikovs, Noam Nissan, Lucio Frydman, Yuta Urushibata, Maya Honda, Aika Okazawa, Hiroko Satake, Shinji Naganawa, Yuji Nakamoto
{"title":"Comparing Lesion Conspicuity and ADC Reliability in High-resolution Diffusion-weighted Imaging of the Breast.","authors":"Mami Iima, Rena Nakayama, Masako Kataoka, Martins Otikovs, Noam Nissan, Lucio Frydman, Yuta Urushibata, Maya Honda, Aika Okazawa, Hiroko Satake, Shinji Naganawa, Yuji Nakamoto","doi":"10.2463/mrms.tn.2024-0089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study investigated the breast lesion conspicuity and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) reliability for three different diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) protocols: spatiotemporal encoding (SPEN), single-shot echo-planar imaging (SS-EPI), and readout segmentation of long variable echo-trains (RESOLVE).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixty-five women suspected of having breast tumors were included in this study, with 44 lesions (36 malignant, 8 benign) analyzed further. Breast MRI was performed on a 3 Tesla (3T) system (MAGNETOM Prisma, Siemens) equipped with a dedicated 18-channel breast array coil for a phantom and patients. Three DWI protocols-SPEN, SS-EPI, and RESOLVE-were used. SS-EPI was acquired with an in-plane resolution of 2 × 2 mm<sup>2</sup>, a slice thickness of 3 mm, and b-values of 0 and 1000 s/mm<sup>2</sup>. SPEN had a higher in-plane resolution of 1 × 1 mm<sup>2</sup>, a slice thickness of 1.5 mm, and b-values of 0, 850, and 1500 s/mm<sup>2</sup>. RESOLVE was acquired with an in-plane resolution of 1 × 1 mm<sup>2</sup>, a slice thickness of 1.5 mm, and b-values of 0 and 850 s/mm<sup>2</sup>. Lesion conspicuity and ADC values were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The average lesion conspicuity scores were significantly higher for RESOLVE (3.54 ± 0.65) than for SPEN (3.07 ± 0.91) or SS-EPI (2.48 ± 0.78) (P < 0.01). The SPEN score was significantly higher than the SS-EPI score (P < 0.01). Phantom measurements indicated marginally lower ADC values for SPEN compared to SS-EPI and RESOLVE across all concentrations. The results revealed that SPEN (b = 0, 850, 1500 sec/mm<sup>2</sup>) yielded significantly lower ADC values compared to SPEN (b = 0, 850 sec/mm<sup>2</sup>) in malignant lesions (P < 0.01), with no significant difference observed between SPEN (b = 0, 850 sec/mm<sup>2</sup>), SS-EPI, and RESOLVE. For benign lesions, no significant difference in ADC values was found between SPEN (b = 0, 850 sec/mm<sup>2</sup>), SPEN (b = 0, 850, 1500 sec/mm<sup>2</sup>), SS-EPI, and RESOLVE.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>RESOLVE provided the highest lesion conspicuity, and ADC values in breast lesions were not significantly different among sequences ranging b values 850-1000 sec/mm<sup>2</sup>. SPEN with higher b-values (0, 850, 1500 vs. 0, 850 sec/mm<sup>2</sup>) yielded significantly lower ADC values in malignant lesions, highlighting the importance of b-value selection in ADC quantification.</p>","PeriodicalId":94126,"journal":{"name":"Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2463/mrms.tn.2024-0089","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study investigated the breast lesion conspicuity and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) reliability for three different diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) protocols: spatiotemporal encoding (SPEN), single-shot echo-planar imaging (SS-EPI), and readout segmentation of long variable echo-trains (RESOLVE).

Methods: Sixty-five women suspected of having breast tumors were included in this study, with 44 lesions (36 malignant, 8 benign) analyzed further. Breast MRI was performed on a 3 Tesla (3T) system (MAGNETOM Prisma, Siemens) equipped with a dedicated 18-channel breast array coil for a phantom and patients. Three DWI protocols-SPEN, SS-EPI, and RESOLVE-were used. SS-EPI was acquired with an in-plane resolution of 2 × 2 mm2, a slice thickness of 3 mm, and b-values of 0 and 1000 s/mm2. SPEN had a higher in-plane resolution of 1 × 1 mm2, a slice thickness of 1.5 mm, and b-values of 0, 850, and 1500 s/mm2. RESOLVE was acquired with an in-plane resolution of 1 × 1 mm2, a slice thickness of 1.5 mm, and b-values of 0 and 850 s/mm2. Lesion conspicuity and ADC values were evaluated.

Results: The average lesion conspicuity scores were significantly higher for RESOLVE (3.54 ± 0.65) than for SPEN (3.07 ± 0.91) or SS-EPI (2.48 ± 0.78) (P < 0.01). The SPEN score was significantly higher than the SS-EPI score (P < 0.01). Phantom measurements indicated marginally lower ADC values for SPEN compared to SS-EPI and RESOLVE across all concentrations. The results revealed that SPEN (b = 0, 850, 1500 sec/mm2) yielded significantly lower ADC values compared to SPEN (b = 0, 850 sec/mm2) in malignant lesions (P < 0.01), with no significant difference observed between SPEN (b = 0, 850 sec/mm2), SS-EPI, and RESOLVE. For benign lesions, no significant difference in ADC values was found between SPEN (b = 0, 850 sec/mm2), SPEN (b = 0, 850, 1500 sec/mm2), SS-EPI, and RESOLVE.

Conclusion: RESOLVE provided the highest lesion conspicuity, and ADC values in breast lesions were not significantly different among sequences ranging b values 850-1000 sec/mm2. SPEN with higher b-values (0, 850, 1500 vs. 0, 850 sec/mm2) yielded significantly lower ADC values in malignant lesions, highlighting the importance of b-value selection in ADC quantification.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较乳腺高分辨率弥散加权成像中病变的明显性和 ADC 可靠性
目的:本研究调查了三种不同的弥散加权成像(DWI)方案:时空编码(SPEN)、单次回声平面成像(SS-EPI)和长可变回声序列读出分割(RESOLVE)的乳腺病变显着性和表观弥散系数(ADC)可靠性:本研究共纳入 65 名疑似患有乳腺肿瘤的女性,进一步分析了 44 个病灶(36 个恶性,8 个良性)。乳腺磁共振成像在 3 Tesla (3T) 系统(MAGNETOM Prisma,西门子)上进行,该系统配备了专用的 18 通道乳腺阵列线圈,用于模型和患者。使用了三种 DWI 方案--SPEN、SS-EPI 和 RESOLVE。SS-EPI 的面内分辨率为 2 × 2 mm2,切片厚度为 3 mm,b 值为 0 和 1000 s/mm2。SPEN 的平面内分辨率更高,为 1 × 1 平方毫米,切片厚度为 1.5 毫米,b 值为 0、850 和 1500 s/mm2。RESOLVE的平面内分辨率为1×1平方毫米,切片厚度为1.5毫米,b值为0和850 s/mm2。对病变的清晰度和 ADC 值进行了评估:RESOLVE的平均病灶清晰度评分(3.54 ± 0.65)明显高于SPEN(3.07 ± 0.91)或SS-EPI(2.48 ± 0.78)(P < 0.01)。SPEN 评分明显高于 SS-EPI 评分(P < 0.01)。模型测量显示,在所有浓度下,SPEN 的 ADC 值略低于 SS-EPI 和 RESOLVE。结果显示,在恶性病变中,SPEN(b = 0,850,1500 sec/mm2)的 ADC 值明显低于 SPEN(b = 0,850 sec/mm2)(P < 0.01),SPEN(b = 0,850 sec/mm2)、SS-EPI 和 RESOLVE 之间无明显差异。对于良性病变,SPEN(b = 0、850 秒/平方毫米)、SPEN(b = 0、850、1500 秒/平方毫米)、SS-EPI 和 RESOLVE 之间的 ADC 值无明显差异:结论:RESOLVE提供了最高的病灶清晰度,在b值为850-1000秒/平方毫米的序列中,乳腺病灶的ADC值没有明显差异。b值较高的SPEN(0、850、1500与0、850秒/平方毫米)在恶性病变中产生的ADC值明显较低,这凸显了在ADC量化中选择b值的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Image-based Re-evaluation of the JCOG0911 Study Focusing on Tumor Volume and Survival, Disease Progression Diagnosis, and Radiomic Prognostication for Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma. Improving Vessel Visibility and Applying Artificial Intelligence to Autodetect Brain Metastasis for a 3D MR Imaging Sequence Capable of Simultaneous Images with and without Blood Vessel Suppression. Identification of the Distal Dural Ring Using Three-dimensional Motion-sensitized Driven-equilibrium Prepared T1-weighted Fast Spin Echo Imaging: Application to Paraclinoid Aneurysms. In-vitro Detection of Intramammary-like Macrocalcifications Using Susceptibility-weighted MR Imaging Techniques at 1.5T. Artificial Intelligence in Obstetric and Gynecological MR Imaging.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1