合成扩散加权成像在乳腺磁共振成像评估中的诊断价值:与传统扩散加权成像的比较。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Diagnostic and interventional radiology Pub Date : 2024-03-06 Epub Date: 2023-10-27 DOI:10.4274/dir.2023.232466
Ebru Yılmaz, Nilgün Güldoğan, Sıla Ulus, Ebru Banu Türk, Mustafa Enes Mısır, Aydan Arslan, Mustafa Erkin Arıbal
{"title":"合成扩散加权成像在乳腺磁共振成像评估中的诊断价值:与传统扩散加权成像的比较。","authors":"Ebru Yılmaz, Nilgün Güldoğan, Sıla Ulus, Ebru Banu Türk, Mustafa Enes Mısır, Aydan Arslan, Mustafa Erkin Arıbal","doi":"10.4274/dir.2023.232466","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare images generated by synthetic diffusion-weighted imaging (sDWI) with those from conventional DWI in terms of their diagnostic performance in detecting breast lesions when performing breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 128 consecutive patients with 135 enhanced lesions who underwent dynamic MRI between 2018 and 2021 were included. The sDWI and DWI signals were compared by three radiologists with at least 10 years of experience in breast radiology.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 82 malignant lesions, 91.5% were hyperintense on sDWI and 73.2% were hyperintense on DWI. Of the 53 benign lesions, 71.7% were isointense on sDWI and 37.7% were isointense on DWI. sDWI provides accurate signal intensity data with statistical significance compared with DWI (<i>P</i> < 0.05). The diagnostic performance of DWI and sDWI to differentiate malignant breast masses from benign masses was as follows: sensitivity 73.1% [95% confidence interval (CI): 62-82], specificity 37.7% (95% CI: 24-52); sensitivity 91.5% (95% CI: 83-96), specificity 71.7% (95% CI: 57-83), respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of DWI and sDWI was 59.2% and 83.7%, respectively. However, when the DWI images were evaluated with apparent diffusion coefficient mapping and compared with the sDWI images, the sensitivity was 92.68% (95% CI: 84-97) and the specificity was 79.25% (95% CI: 65-89) with no statistically significant difference. The inter-reader agreement was almost perfect (<i>P</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Synthetic DWI is superior to DWI for lesion visibility with no additional acquisition time and should be taken into consideration when conducting breast MRI scans. The evaluation of sDWI in routine MRI reporting will increase diagnostic accuracy.</p>","PeriodicalId":11341,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic and interventional radiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10916533/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic value of synthetic diffusion-weighted imaging on breast magnetic resonance imaging assessment: comparison with conventional diffusion-weighted imaging.\",\"authors\":\"Ebru Yılmaz, Nilgün Güldoğan, Sıla Ulus, Ebru Banu Türk, Mustafa Enes Mısır, Aydan Arslan, Mustafa Erkin Arıbal\",\"doi\":\"10.4274/dir.2023.232466\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare images generated by synthetic diffusion-weighted imaging (sDWI) with those from conventional DWI in terms of their diagnostic performance in detecting breast lesions when performing breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 128 consecutive patients with 135 enhanced lesions who underwent dynamic MRI between 2018 and 2021 were included. The sDWI and DWI signals were compared by three radiologists with at least 10 years of experience in breast radiology.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 82 malignant lesions, 91.5% were hyperintense on sDWI and 73.2% were hyperintense on DWI. Of the 53 benign lesions, 71.7% were isointense on sDWI and 37.7% were isointense on DWI. sDWI provides accurate signal intensity data with statistical significance compared with DWI (<i>P</i> < 0.05). The diagnostic performance of DWI and sDWI to differentiate malignant breast masses from benign masses was as follows: sensitivity 73.1% [95% confidence interval (CI): 62-82], specificity 37.7% (95% CI: 24-52); sensitivity 91.5% (95% CI: 83-96), specificity 71.7% (95% CI: 57-83), respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of DWI and sDWI was 59.2% and 83.7%, respectively. However, when the DWI images were evaluated with apparent diffusion coefficient mapping and compared with the sDWI images, the sensitivity was 92.68% (95% CI: 84-97) and the specificity was 79.25% (95% CI: 65-89) with no statistically significant difference. The inter-reader agreement was almost perfect (<i>P</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Synthetic DWI is superior to DWI for lesion visibility with no additional acquisition time and should be taken into consideration when conducting breast MRI scans. The evaluation of sDWI in routine MRI reporting will increase diagnostic accuracy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11341,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diagnostic and interventional radiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10916533/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diagnostic and interventional radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4274/dir.2023.232466\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/10/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic and interventional radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4274/dir.2023.232466","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较合成扩散加权成像(sDWI)和传统DWI生成的图像在进行乳腺磁共振成像(MRI)时检测乳腺病变的诊断性能。方法:纳入2018年至2021年间接受动态MRI检查的128名连续患者,135个增强病变。三位至少有10年乳腺放射学经验的放射科医生对sDWI和DWI信号进行了比较。结果:82例恶性病变中,sDWI高信号占91.5%,DWI高信号占73.2%。在53个良性病变中,71.7%的病变在sDWI上表现为等强度,37.7%的病变表现为DWI上的等强度。sDWI提供了准确的信号强度数据,与DWI相比具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。DWI和sDWI对乳腺良恶性肿块的诊断性能如下:敏感性73.1%[95%置信区间(CI):62-82],特异性37.7%(95%CI:24-52);敏感性91.5%(95%CI:83-96),特异性71.7%(95%CI:57-83)。DWI和sDWI的诊断准确率分别为59.2%和83.7%。然而,当用表观扩散系数映射评估DWI图像并与sDWI图像进行比较时,敏感性为92.68%(95%CI:84-97),特异性为79.25%(95%CI:65-89),没有统计学显著差异。读者之间的一致性几乎是完美的(P<0.001)。结论:合成DWI在病变可见性方面优于DWI,无需额外的采集时间,在进行乳腺MRI扫描时应予以考虑。在常规MRI报告中评估sDWI将提高诊断准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Diagnostic value of synthetic diffusion-weighted imaging on breast magnetic resonance imaging assessment: comparison with conventional diffusion-weighted imaging.

Purpose: To compare images generated by synthetic diffusion-weighted imaging (sDWI) with those from conventional DWI in terms of their diagnostic performance in detecting breast lesions when performing breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Methods: A total of 128 consecutive patients with 135 enhanced lesions who underwent dynamic MRI between 2018 and 2021 were included. The sDWI and DWI signals were compared by three radiologists with at least 10 years of experience in breast radiology.

Results: Of the 82 malignant lesions, 91.5% were hyperintense on sDWI and 73.2% were hyperintense on DWI. Of the 53 benign lesions, 71.7% were isointense on sDWI and 37.7% were isointense on DWI. sDWI provides accurate signal intensity data with statistical significance compared with DWI (P < 0.05). The diagnostic performance of DWI and sDWI to differentiate malignant breast masses from benign masses was as follows: sensitivity 73.1% [95% confidence interval (CI): 62-82], specificity 37.7% (95% CI: 24-52); sensitivity 91.5% (95% CI: 83-96), specificity 71.7% (95% CI: 57-83), respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of DWI and sDWI was 59.2% and 83.7%, respectively. However, when the DWI images were evaluated with apparent diffusion coefficient mapping and compared with the sDWI images, the sensitivity was 92.68% (95% CI: 84-97) and the specificity was 79.25% (95% CI: 65-89) with no statistically significant difference. The inter-reader agreement was almost perfect (P < 0.001).

Conclusion: Synthetic DWI is superior to DWI for lesion visibility with no additional acquisition time and should be taken into consideration when conducting breast MRI scans. The evaluation of sDWI in routine MRI reporting will increase diagnostic accuracy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Diagnostic and interventional radiology
Diagnostic and interventional radiology Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
自引率
4.80%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology (Diagn Interv Radiol) is the open access, online-only official publication of Turkish Society of Radiology. It is published bimonthly and the journal’s publication language is English. The journal is a medium for original articles, reviews, pictorial essays, technical notes related to all fields of diagnostic and interventional radiology.
期刊最新文献
Diagnostic value of the flare sign in predicting extracapsular extension in metastatic axillary lymph nodes and nodal status on breast magnetic resonance imaging. Challenges associated with percutaneous nephrostomy in infants Correlation between computed tomography-based body composition parameters and hepatic venous pressure gradient in patients with cirrhosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis Experimental study of a canine model for a newly designed adjustable prefenestration aortic stent graft Pre-procedure 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging improves the performance of CT-guided transthoracic biopsy
×
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