Display options
Cite
Bozkurt Bostan T, Koç G, Sezgin G, et al. Value of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Values in Differentiating Malignant and Benign Breast Lesions. Balkan Med J. 2016;33(3):294-300doi: 10.5152/balkanmedj.2016.141007.
Bozkurt Bostan, T., Koç, G., Sezgin, G., Altay, C., Fazıl Gelal, M., & Oyar, O. (2016). Value of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Values in Differentiating Malignant and Benign Breast Lesions. Balkan medical journal, 33(3), 294-300. https://doi.org/10.5152/balkanmedj.2016.141007
Bozkurt Bostan, Tuğba, et al. "Value of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Values in Differentiating Malignant and Benign Breast Lesions." Balkan medical journal vol. 33,3 (2016): 294-300. doi: https://doi.org/10.5152/balkanmedj.2016.141007
Bozkurt Bostan T, Koç G, Sezgin G, Altay C, Fazıl Gelal M, Oyar O. Value of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Values in Differentiating Malignant and Benign Breast Lesions. Balkan Med J. 2016 May;33(3):294-300. doi: 10.5152/balkanmedj.2016.141007. Epub 2016 May 01. PMID: 27308073; PMCID: PMC4898988.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Balkan Med J. 2016 May;33(3):294-300. doi: 10.5152/balkanmedj.2016.141007. Epub 2016 May 01.

Value of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Values in Differentiating Malignant and Benign Breast Lesions.

Balkan medical journal

Tuğba Bozkurt Bostan, Gonca Koç, Gülten Sezgin, Canan Altay, M Fazıl Gelal, Orhan Oyar

Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, ?zmir Kâtip Çelebi University Atatürk Training and Research Hospital.

PMID: 27308073 PMCID: PMC4898988 DOI: 10.5152/balkanmedj.2016.141007

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become a diagnostic and problem solving method for the breast examinations in addition to conventional breast examination methods. Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) adds valuable information to conventional MRI.

AIMS: Our aim was to show the impact of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values acquired with DWI to differentiate benign and malignant breast lesions.

STUDY DESIGN: Diagnostic accuracy study.

METHODS: Forty-six women with 58 breast masses (35 malignant, 23 benign) were examined on a 1.5 T clinical MRI scanner. The morphologic characteristics of the lesions on conventional MRI sequences and contrast uptake pattern were assessed. ADC values of both lesions and normal breast parenchyma were measured. The ADC values obtained were statistically compared with the histopathologic results using Paired Samples t-Test.

RESULTS: Multiple lesions were detected in 12 (26%) of the patients, while only one lesion was detected in 34 (74%). Overall, 35 lesions out of 58 were histopathologically proven to be malignant. In the dynamic contrast-enhanced series, 5 of the malignant lesions were type 1, while 8 benign lesions revealed either type 2 or 3 time signal intensity curves (85% sensitivity, 56% spesifity). Mean ADC values were significantly different in malignant vs. benign lesions. (1.04±0.29×10(-3) cm(2)/sec vs. 1.61±0.50×10(-3) cm(2)/sec for the malignant and benign lesions, respectively, p=0.03). A cut-off value of 1.30×10(-3) mm(2)/sec for ADC detected with receiver operating characteristic analysis yielded 89.1% sensitivity and 100% specificity for the differentiation between benign and malignant lesions.

CONCLUSION: ADC values improve the diagnostic accuracy of solid breast lesions when evaluated with the conventional MRI sequences. Therefore, DWI should be incorporated to routine breast MRI protocol.

Keywords: Apparent diffusion coefficient value; breast magnetic resonance imaging; diffusion-weighted imaging

References

  1. JAMA. 1998 Mar 25;279(12):922-9 - PubMed
  2. Radiology. 1999 Apr;211(1):101-10 - PubMed
  3. Eur J Radiol. 2003 Mar;45(3):169-84 - PubMed
  4. Radiographics. 2006 Nov-Dec;26(6):1719-34; quiz 1719 - PubMed
  5. Eur Radiol. 2007 Oct;17(10):2646-55 - PubMed
  6. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2007;6(1):21-7 - PubMed
  7. Childs Nerv Syst. 2001 Apr;17(4-5):195-201 - PubMed
  8. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009 Dec;193(6):1716-22 - PubMed
  9. Eur Radiol. 2010 May;20(5):1101-10 - PubMed
  10. Radiology. 1998 Nov;209(2):511-8 - PubMed
  11. Radiol Clin North Am. 2004 Sep;42(5):919-34, vii - PubMed
  12. JAMA. 1996 Jul 3;276(1):39-43 - PubMed
  13. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009 Oct;193(4):1030-5 - PubMed
  14. Clin Radiol. 2010 Dec;65(12):1005-12 - PubMed
  15. Acta Radiol. 1998 Sep;39(5):494-500 - PubMed
  16. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002 Aug;16(2):172-8 - PubMed
  17. Radiat Med. 2007 Jun;25(5):218-23 - PubMed
  18. Br J Radiol. 2000 Aug;73(872):806-18 - PubMed
  19. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2005;4(1):35-42 - PubMed
  20. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008 Nov;28(5):1157-65 - PubMed
  21. Radiology. 1999 Dec;213(3):881-8 - PubMed
  22. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2002 Nov-Dec;26(6):1042-6 - PubMed
  23. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010 Nov;195(5):1250-4 - PubMed
  24. Mod Pathol. 1993 Sep;6(5):539-43 - PubMed
  25. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009 Oct;193(4):W295-300 - PubMed
  26. JAMA. 2008 May 14;299(18):2151-63 - PubMed
  27. Acta Radiol. 2003 Jul;44(4):379-86 - PubMed
  28. Radiology. 1994 Jun;191(3):625-31 - PubMed
  29. Ai Zheng. 2007 Feb;26(2):168-71 - PubMed
  30. Korean J Radiol. 2007 Sep-Oct;8(5):390-6 - PubMed
  31. Ann Intern Med. 2003 Feb 4;138(3):168-75 - PubMed
  32. Br J Cancer. 2006 Aug 7;95(3):393-7 - PubMed
  33. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2008;7(1):23-9 - PubMed
  34. Radiology. 2002 Oct;225(1):165-75 - PubMed
  35. Acad Radiol. 2007 Sep;14(9):1077-83 - PubMed
  36. Br J Cancer. 2011 Jul 26;105(3):460-5 - PubMed
  37. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010 May;31(5):1100-5 - PubMed

Publication Types