Share：
Share this content in WeChat
X
[Chinese][PDF]6541
• Clinical Article •
Differential diagnostic value of IVIM combining with dynamic enhanced MRI in non-mass enhancement adenosis and breast cancer
WU Qi  WANG Zhuo  NING Ning  LIANG Hongbing  ZHANG Lina  GAO Xue  SONG Qingwei 

Cite this article as: WU Q, WANG Z, NING N, et al. Differential diagnostic value of IVIM combining with dynamic enhanced MRI in non-mass enhancement adenosis and breast cancer[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2023, 14(2): 37-43, 49. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2023.02.007.


[Abstract] Objective To investigate the differential diagnostic value of IVIM in non-mass enhancement (NME) adenosis and breast cancer.Materials and Methods Retrospective analysis of 106 cases with NME manifestation on dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI were performed between January 2020 and March 2022. The cases were divided into two groups according to pathological results: adenosis (n=55) and breast cancer (n=51), the intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) quantitative parameters [standard apparent diffusion coefficient (SADC), slow ADC (D), fast ADC (D*) and perfusion fraction (f)] were measured, and the lesion location and DCE characteristics [fibroglandular tissue (FGT), background parenchymal enhancement (BPE), distribution characteristics, internal enhancement characteristics, and time-signal intensity curve (TIC) type] were compared and analyzed, univariate analysis was used to analyze the normality of the two groups of data separately, the independent sample t-test was selected for the normal distribution data, and the nonparametric rank sum test was selected for the non-normal distribution, the statistical differences between the two groups were compared and the diagnostic efficacy was evaluated, the best parameters were screened out by multivariate logistic regression analysis for joint diagnosis, and the threshold, sensitivity and specificity were obtained by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.Results Breast cancer had f was lower than adenosis [(0.52±0.14) vs. (0.58±0.11), P=0.028; threshold was 0.73], and D* was significantly higher than adenosis [(7.85±7.60)×10-3 mm2/s vs. (3.67±1.61)×10-3 mm2/s, P＜0.001; threshold was 4.10×10-3 mm2/s], with an area under the curve (AUC) for disease diagnosis of 0.608 and 0.730, respectively. Within breast cancer lesions were heterogeneous (54.9%), TIC (70.6%), adenosis (65.5%), and TIC type I (72.7%), both AUC for disease diagnosis were 0.709 and 0.810, respectively. D* and TIC types were independent risk factors for NME breast cancer (P=0.003 and 0.006, respectively), the AUC of both for disease diagnosis was 0.730 and 0.810, respectively, and the combination was significantly better (AUC=0.860, sensitivity was 72.5%, specificity was 85.5%). Further comparing pure adenosis (n=39) with sclerosing adenosis (n=16), the SADC, D, and f values were higher than those of sclerosing adenosis (P=0.076, 0.176, 0.181, respectively), D* value lower than adenosis (P=0.331); the internal enhancement characteristics of pure adenosis were dominated by homogeneous enhancement and heterogeneous enhancement (43.6% and 51.3%, respectively), while sclerosing adenosis cases were all heterogeneous enhancement, accounting for 100.0%, the difference was statistically significant (P=0.001), diagnostic performance with an AUC of 0.692, sensitivity was 100.0%.Conclusions Combining IVIM with DCE helps to improve the differential efficacy of MRI for the diagnosis of adenosis and breast cancer with NME manifestation. The TIC type and D* values are independent risk factors for predicting breast cancer with NME manifestation, and the internal enhancement features contribute to the ability of differentiation between the pure adenosis and sclerosing adenosis.
[Keywords] breast cancer；adenosis；non-mass enhancement；intravoxel incoherent motion；dynamic contrast-enhanced；magnetic resonance imaging

WU Qi1   WANG Zhuo1   NING Ning1   LIANG Hongbing1   ZHANG Lina1*   GAO Xue2   SONG Qingwei1  

1 Department of Radiology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, Dalian 116011, China

2 Department of Pathology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, Dalian 116011, China

*Correspondence to: Zhang LN, E-mail: zln201045@163.com

Conflicts of interest   None.

Received  2022-11-03
Accepted  2023-02-13
DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2023.02.007
Cite this article as: WU Q, WANG Z, NING N, et al. Differential diagnostic value of IVIM combining with dynamic enhanced MRI in non-mass enhancement adenosis and breast cancer[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2023, 14(2): 37-43, 49. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2023.02.007.

[1]
ONEGA T, ZHU W W, KERLIKOWSKE K, et al. Preoperative MRI in breast cancer: effect of breast density on biopsy rate and yield[J]. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2022, 191(1): 177-190. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-021-06418-x.
[2]
AO F, YAN Y, ZHANG Z L, et al. The value of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging combined with apparent diffusion coefficient in the differentiation of benign and malignant diseases of the breast[J]. Acta Radiol, 2022, 63(7): 891-900. DOI: 10.1177/02841851211024002.
[3]
TURK G, OZDEMIR M, COBAN M, et al. Is biopsy necessary? Role of DCE-MRI in BIRADS-3 lesions[J]. Diagn Interv Radiol, 2020, 26(6): 552-556. DOI: 10.5152/dir.2020.19455.
[4]
ZHU D, QIAN H S, HAN H X, et al. MRI differential diagnosis of breast adenosis and breast ductal carcinoma with pathological correlation[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2017, 8(10): 753-759. DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2017.10.007.
[5]
MORI N, SHETH D, ABE H. Nonmass enhancement breast lesions: diagnostic performance of kinetic assessment on ultrafast and standard dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in comparison with morphologic evaluation[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2020, 215(2): 511-518. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.19.21920.
[6]
GAO Y Y, YANG A M, PENG J, et al. DCE-MRI features and ADC value analysis in non-mass breast cancer and non-mass breast benign lesions of BI-RADS category 4[J]. J Clin Radiol, 2018, 37(7): 1101-1105. DOI: 10.13437/j.cnki.jcr.2018.07.008.
[7]
KIM O H, KIM S J, LEE J S. Enhancing patterns of breast cancer on preoperative dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and resection margin in breast conserving therapy[J]. Breast Dis, 2016, 36(1): 27-35. DOI: 10.3233/BD-150195.
[8]
LIU W, ZONG M, GONG H Y, et al. Comparison of diagnostic efficacy between contrast-enhanced ultrasound and DCE-MRI for mass- and non-mass-like enhancement types in breast lesions[J]. Cancer Manag Res, 2020, 12: 13567-13578. DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S283656.
[9]
LE BIHAN D, BRETON E, LALLEMAND D, et al. Separation of diffusion and perfusion in intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging[J]. Radiology, 1988, 168(2): 497-505. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.168.2.3393671.
[10]
LI K, MACHIREDDY A, TUDORICA A, et al. Discrimination of malignant and benign breast lesions using quantitative multiparametric MRI: a preliminary study[J]. Tomography, 2020, 6(2): 148-159. DOI: 10.18383/j.tom.2019.00028.
[11]
BRAMAN N M, ETESAMI M, PRASANNA P, et al. Intratumoral and peritumoral radiomics for the pretreatment prediction of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy based on breast DCE-MRI[J/OL]. Breast Cancer Res, 2017, 19(1): 57 [2022-08-28]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28521821/. DOI: 10.1186/s13058-017-0846-1.
[12]
JIANG L, LU X, HUA B, et al. Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging versus dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: comparison of the diagnostic performance of perfusion-related parameters in breast[J]. J Comput Assist Tomogr, 2018, 42(1): 6-11. DOI: 10.1097/RCT.0000000000000661.
[13]
ZHAO M, FU K, ZHANG L, et al. Intravoxel incoherent motion magnetic resonance imaging for breast cancer: a comparison with benign lesions and evaluation of heterogeneity in different tumor regions with prognostic factors and molecular classification[J]. Oncol Lett, 2018, 16(4): 5100-5112. DOI: 10.3892/ol.2018.9312.
[14]
USLU H, ÖNAL T, TOSUN M, et al. Intravoxel incoherent motion magnetic resonance imaging for breast cancer: a comparison with molecular subtypes and histological grades[J]. Magn Reson Imaging, 2021, 78: 35-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2021.02.005.
[15]
HU J J, YU X, YIN P D, et al. Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted MR imaging for monitoring the immune response of immunogenic chemotherapy[J/OL]. Front Oncol, 2022, 12: 796936 [2022-08-29]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35646652/. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.796936.
[16]
KIM Y, KIM S H, LEE H W, et al. Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted MRI for predicting response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer[J]. Magn Reson Imaging, 2018, 48: 27-33. DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2017.12.018.
[17]
MA D J, LU F, ZOU X X, et al. Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging as an adjunct to dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI to improve accuracy of the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant non-mass-like enhanced breast lesions[J]. Radiol Pract, 2019, 34(12): 1337-1342. DOI: 10.13609/j.cnki.1000-0313.2019.12.012.
[18]
PINKER K, BICKEL H, HELBICH T H, et al. Combined contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance and diffusion-weighted imaging reading adapted to the "Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System" for multiparametric 3-T imaging of breast lesions[J]. Eur Radiol, 2013, 23(7): 1791-1802. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-013-2771-8.
[19]
HE C J. Expert consensus on breast magnetic resonance examination and diagnostic criteria[J]. Oncoradiology, 2017, 26(4): 241-249. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-617X.2017.04.001.
[20]
HONDA M, KATAOKA M, IIMA M, et al. Background parenchymal enhancement and its effect on lesion detectability in ultrafast dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI[J/OL]. Eur J Radiol, 2020, 129: 108984 [2022-09-03]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32534350/. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.108984.
[21]
BROOKS J D, CHRISTENSEN R A G, SUNG J S, et al. MRI background parenchymal enhancement, breast density and breast cancer risk factors: a cross-sectional study in pre- and post-menopausal women[J/OL]. NPJ Breast Cancer, 2022, 8(1): 97 [2022-08-28]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36008488/. DOI: 10.1038/s41523-022-00458-2.
[22]
HU X X, JIANG L, YOU C, et al. Fibroglandular tissue and background parenchymal enhancement on breast MR imaging correlates with breast cancer[J/OL]. Front Oncol, 2021, 11: 616716 [2022-09-03]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34660251/. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.616716.
[23]
DONTCHOS B N, RAHBAR H, PARTRIDGE S C, et al. Are qualitative assessments of background parenchymal enhancement, amount of fibroglandular tissue on MR images, and mammographic density associated with breast cancer risk?[J]. Radiology, 2015, 276(2): 371-380. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2015142304.
[24]
LI H, SUN H, LIU S Q, et al. Assessing the performance of benign and malignant breast lesion classification with bilateral TIC differentiation and other effective features in DCE-MRI[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2019, 50(2): 465-473. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.26646.
[25]
ZHANG G W, WANG S S, WEN D D, et al. Comparison of non-Gaussian and Gaussian diffusion models of diffusion weighted imaging of rectal cancer at 3.0 T MRI[J/OL]. Sci Rep, 2016, 6: 38782 [2022-08-28]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32993251/. DOI: 10.1038/srep38782.
[26]
WEI Q S, LU D M, LIU Y L, et al. Comparison of mono and bi fitting method based IVIM imaging in breast lesions[J]. J China Clin Med Imaging, 2019, 30(2): 98-101. DOI: 10.12117/jccmi.2019.02.006.
[27]
TAO W J, ZHANG H X, ZHANG L M, et al. Combined application of pharamcokinetic DCE‐MRI and IVIM‐DWI could improve detection effificiency in early diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ[J]. J Appl Clin Med Phys, 2019, 20(7): 142-150. DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12624.
[28]
ZHANG T Y, WANG D B, WANG L J, et al. The value of intravoxel incoherent motion model diffusion-weighted MRI in the diagnosis of breast lesions categorized as nonmass enhancement[J]. Radiol Pract, 2017, 32(3): 242-247. DOI: 10.13609/j.cnki.1000-0313.2017.03.008.
[29]
ZHOU J, ZENG Y J, WANG Z, et al. Bi-exponential diffusion and diffusion kurtosis imaging in differential diagnosis of benign and malignant breast lesions[J]. Chin J Med Imaging Technol, 2018, 34(10): 1514-1518. DOI: 10.13929/j.1003-3289.201803100.
[30]
MA D J, LU F, ZOU X X, et al. Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging as an adjunct to dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI to improve accuracy of the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant breast lesions[J]. Magn Reson Imaging, 2017, 36: 175-179. DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2016.10.005.
[31]
CHEN W J, ZHANG J, LONG D, et al. Optimization of intra-voxel incoherent motion measurement in diffusion-weighted imaging of breast cancer[J]. J Appl Clin Med Phys, 2017, 18(3): 191-199. DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12065.
[32]
IIMA M, KATAOKA M, KANAO S, et al. Intravoxel incoherent motion and quantitative non-Gaussian diffusion MR imaging: evaluation of the diagnostic and prognostic value of several markers of malignant and benign breast lesions[J]. Radiology, 2018, 287(2): 432-441. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017162853.

PREV Functional connectivity of the primary visual cortex in patients with comitant exotropia
NEXT Application of 3.0 T MRI in evaluation of nipple areola complex invasion in breast cancer patients
  


LINK


Tel & Fax: +8610-67113815    E-mail: editor@cjmri.cn