The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.
ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Oncol.
Sec. Cancer Imaging and Image-directed Interventions
Volume 14 - 2024 |
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1437506
This article is part of the Research Topic Breast Cancer Imaging: Clinical Translation of Novel Methods View all 9 articles
Diffusion Weighted Imaging for Improving the Diagnostic Performance of Screening Breast MRI: Impact of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Quantitation Methods and Cutoffs
Provisionally accepted- 1 Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States
- 2 Department of Bioengineering, College of Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States
- 3 Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, United States
Diffusion weighted MRI (DWI) has emerged as a promising adjunct to reduce unnecessary biopsies prompted by breast MRI through use of apparent diffusion coefficient(ADC) measures. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of different lesion ADC measurement approaches and ADC cutoffs on the diagnostic performance of breast DWI in a high-risk MRI screening cohort to identify the optimal approach for clinical incorporation. Consecutive screening breast MRI examinations (August 2014–Dec 2018) that prompted a biopsy for a suspicious breast lesion (BI-RADS 4 or 5) were retrospectively evaluated. On DWI, ADC (b=0/100/600/800s/mm2) measures were calculated with three different techniques for defining lesion region-of-interest (ROI; single-slice(‘2D’), whole volume(‘3D’) and lowest ADC region(‘hotspot’)). An optimal data-derived ADC cutoff for each technique was retrospectively identified to reduce benign biopsies while avoiding any false negatives, inherently producing cutoffs with 100% sensitivity in this particular cohort. Further, diagnostic performance of these measures was validated using two prespecified ADC cutoffs: 1.53x10-3mm2/s from the ECOG-ACRIN A6702 trial and 1.30x10-3mm2/s from the international EUSOBI group. Diagnostic performance was compared between ADC maps generated with 2(0/800s/mm2) and 4(0/100/600/800s/mm2) b-values. Benign biopsy reduction rate was calculated (number of benign lesions with ADC>cutoff)/(total number of benign lesions). 137 suspicious lesions (in 121 women, median age 44 years [range,20-75yrs]) were detected on contrast-enhanced screening breast MRI and recommended for biopsy. Of those, 30(21.9%) were malignant and 107(78.1%) were benign. Hotspot ADC measures were significantly lower (p<0.001) than ADCs from both 2D and 3D ROI techniques. Applying the optimal data-derived ADC cutoffs resulted in comparable reduction in benign biopsies across ROI techniques (range:16.8% -17.8%). Applying the prespecified A6702 and EUSOBI cutoffs resulted in benign biopsy reduction rates of 11.2-19.6%(with 90.0-100% sensitivity) and 36.4-51.4%(with 70.0-83.3% sensitivity), respectively, across ROI techniques. ADC measures and benign biopsy reduction rates were similar when calculated with only 2 b-values (0,800 s/mm2) versus all 4 b-values. Our findings demonstrate that with appropriate ADC thresholds, comparable reduction in benign biopsies can be achieved using lesion ADC measurements computed from a variety of approaches. Choice of ADC cutoff depends on ROI approach and preferred performance tradeoffs (biopsy reduction vs sensitivity).
Keywords: diffusion weighted imaging (DWI), Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), Diagnostic performance, False positives
Received: 23 May 2024; Accepted: 02 Dec 2024.
Copyright: © 2024 Biswas, Hippe, Winter, Li, Rahbar and Partridge. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Savannah Partridge, Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, 98195-4550, Washington, United States
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.