Dataset Information

Fast Temporal Resolution Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI: Histogram Analysis Versus Visual Analysis for Differentiating Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to validate a kinetic assessment based on visually identified peak enhancement, which is routinely used in clinical practice, for differentiating benign from malignant lesions during fast dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Between January 2015 and December 2016, 90 consecutively registered patients with 105 breast lesions (40 benign, 65 malignant) underwent dynamic contrast-enhanced 1.5-T MRI that included one unenhanced and eight contrast-enhanced fast temporal resolution (10 seconds) whole-breast acquisitions. Histogram analysis was performed to measure the voxel-based enhancement of the entire lesion to obtain 90th, 75th, and 50th percentile values at each time point and to generate kinetic curves. Two observers selected visually identified peak enhancement within the lesions to generate the kinetic curves. The kinetic curves from histogram and visually identified peak enhancement analyses were fitted by means of an empiric mathematic model (EMM): ?S(t) = A × (1 - e-?t), where A is the upper limit of signal intensity, e indicates the exponential function, and ? (min-1) is the rate of increase in signal intensity. The initial slope of the kinetic curve (A × ?) and the initial AUC (AUC30) were calculated. These parameters were compared between benign and malignant lesions, and results from visually identified peak enhancement analysis were compared with those from histogram analysis. RESULTS:Benign lesions were successfully differentiated from malignant lesions in both visually identified peak enhancement and histogram analyses (90th and 75th percentile values) on the basis of ?, A × ?, and AUC30 from the EMM. There was no significant difference in ROC AUC in these EMM parameters between visually identified peak enhancement and histogram analyses (p = 0.21). CONCLUSION:Kinetic assessment with visually identified peak enhancement was acceptable for differentiating benign from malignant lesions.

SUBMITTER: Mori N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6553643 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Fast Temporal Resolution Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI: Histogram Analysis Versus Visual Analysis for Differentiating Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions.

Mori Naoko N Pineda Federico D FD Tsuchiya Keiko K Mugikura Shunji S Takahashi Shoki S Karczmar Gregory S GS Abe Hiroyuki H

AJR. American journal of roentgenology 20180731 4

<h4>Objective</h4>The purpose of this study was to validate a kinetic assessment based on visually identified peak enhancement, which is routinely used in clinical practice, for differentiating benign from malignant lesions during fast dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Between January 2015 and December 2016, 90 consecutively registered patients with 105 breast lesions (40 benign, 65 malignant) underwent dynamic contrast-enhanced 1.5-T MRI that included one unenhanced an ...[more]

PMID: 30063374

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: We performed a network meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and shear wave elastography (SWE) in differentiating benign and malignant lesions in different body sites. Methods: A computerized literature search of Medline, Embase, SCOPUS, and Web of Science was performed using relevant keywords. Following data extraction, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR), negative LR, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for CEUS, and SWE compared to histopathology as a reference standard. Statistical analyses were conducted by MetaDiSc (version 1.4) and R software (version 3.4.3). Results: One hundred and fourteen studies (15,926 patients) were pooled in the final analyses. Network meta-analysis showed that CEUS had significantly higher DOR than SWE (DOR = 27.14, 95%CI [2.30, 51.97]) in breast cancer detection. However, there were no significant differences between CEUS and SWE in hepatic (DOR = -6.67, 95%CI [-15.08, 1.74]) and thyroid cancer detection (DOR = 3.79, 95%CI [-3.10, 10.68]). Interestingly, ranking analysis showed that CEUS achieved higher DOR in detecting breast and thyroid cancer, while SWE achieved higher DOR in detecting hepatic cancer. The overall DOR for CEUS in detecting renal cancer was 53.44, 95%CI [29.89, 95.56] with an AUROC of 0.95, while the overall DOR for SWE in detecting prostate cancer was 25.35, 95%CI [7.15, 89.89] with an AUROC of 0.89. Conclusion: Both diagnostic tests showed relatively high sensitivity and specificity in detecting malignant tumors in different organs. Network meta-analysis showed that CEUS had higher diagnostic accuracy than SWE in detecting breast and thyroid cancer, while SWE had higher accuracy in detecting hepatic cancer. However, the results were not statistically significant in hepatic and thyroid malignancies. Further head-to-head comparisons are needed to confirm the optimal imaging technique to differentiate each cancer type.

Project description:BackgroundThe value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), shear wave elastography (SWE) and their combination in the diagnosis of benign and malignant breast lesions have not been systematically evaluated. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of CEUS combined with SWE in benign and malignant breast lesions.MethodsWe searched six electronic databases for literature to evaluate the value of CEUS combined with SWE in the diagnosis of benign and malignant breast lesions from inception to May 2023. Review Manager 5.4 (Cochrane), Meta-DiSc 1.4, and Stata 14.0 (StataCorp) were used for meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the area under the curve (AUC) were calculated to evaluate the diagnostic performance.ResultsUltimately, 17 studies were analyzed including 1,962 lesions in total. The overall quality of the included literature was acceptable, and no significant publication bias was found among the included studies. The pooled diagnostic performance measures for CEUS were as follows: SEN: 0.86 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.84-0.88], SPE: 0.78 (95% CI: 0.75-0.80), PLR: 4.10 (95% CI: 2.86-5.90), NLR: 0.20 (95% CI: 0.15-0.25), DOR: 23.68 (95% CI: 16.77-33.44), and AUC: 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87-0.93); while, for SWE, SEN: 0.83 (95% CI: 0.81-0.86), SPE: 0.81 (95% CI: 0.78-0.83), PLR: 4.36 (95% CI: 3.18-5.97), NLR: 0.22 (95% CI: 0.17-0.29), DOR: 23.13 (95% CI: 14.70-36.40), and AUC: 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87-0.92). The measures for the pooled diagnostic performance of CEUS combined with SWE were as follows: SEN: 0.92 (95% CI: 0.90-0.94), SPE: 0.87 (95% CI: 0.85-0.89), PLR: 7.10 (95% CI: 5.24-9.61), NLR: 0.11 (95% CI: 0.07-0.16), DOR: 83.51 (95% CI: 49.67-140.39), and AUC: 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94-0.98). There was no statistically significant difference in SEN, SPE, and accuracy (ACC) between CEUS and SWE (P>0.05), but they were significantly lower than those of CEUS combined with SWE (P<0.001).ConclusionsThe diagnostic performance of CEUS combined with SWE is higher than that of using CEUS or SWE alone and can further improve the diagnosis of breast lesions.

Project description:BackgroundElastography is an addition to grey-scale ultrasonic examination that has gained substantial traction within the last decade. Strain ratio (SR) has been incorporated as a semiquantitative measure within strain elastography, thus a potential imaging biomarker. The World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (WFUMB) published guidelines in 2015 for breast elastography. These guidelines acknowledge the marked variance in SR cut-off values used in differentiating benign from malignant lesions. The objective of this review was to include more recent evidence and seek to determine the optimal strain ratio cut off value for differentiating between benign and malignant breast lesions.MethodsComprehensive search of MEDLINE and Web of Science electronic databases with additional searches via Google Scholar and handsearching set from January 2000 to May 2020 was carried out. For retrieved studies, screening for eligibility, data extraction and analysis was done as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA-DTA) Statement guidelines of 2018. Quality and risk of bias assessment of the studies were performed using the revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool.ResultsA total of 424 articles, 412 from electronic database and 12 additional searches were retrieved and 65 studies were included in the narrative synthesis and subgroup analysis. The overall threshold effect indicated significant heterogeneity among the studies with Spearman correlation coefficient of Logit (TPR) vs Logit (FPR) at - 0.301, p-value = 0.015. A subgroup under machine model consisting seven studies with 783 patients and 844 lesions showed a favourable threshold, Spearman's correlation coefficient,0.786 (p = 0.036).ConclusionFrom our review, currently the optimal breast SR cut-off point or value remains unresolved despite the WFUMB guidelines of 2015. Machine model as a possible contributor to cut-off value determination was suggested from this review which can be subjected to more industry and multi-center research determination.

Project description:PurposeTo assess the accuracy of the shutter-speed approach compared with standard approach dynamic contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging pharmacokinetic analysis for breast cancer diagnosis.Materials and methodsThis study was approved by the institutional review board and was HIPAA compliant. Informed consent was obtained from 89 high-risk women (age range, 28-83 years) who had 92 suspicious lesions with negative findings at mammography (but visible at MR imaging). Each underwent a research dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging examination just prior to a clinical MR imaging-guided interventional procedure. Tumor region of interest (ROI) averaged and (for some) pixel-by-pixel dynamic contrast-enhanced time-course data, together with mean arterial input function, were subjected to serial standard and shutter-speed approach analyses to extract pharmacokinetic parameters, including rate constant for passive contrast reagent transfer between plasma and interstitium (K(trans)) and interstitial space volume fraction, or v(e). Pathologic findings were used as reference standards. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed with receiver operating characteristic analyses.ResultsThe pathologic analyses revealed 20 malignant and 72 benign lesions. Positive predictive value of the institutional clinical breast MR imaging protocol was 22%. At 100% sensitivity, ROI-averaged shutter-speed approach K(trans) had significantly (P = .008) higher diagnostic specificity than standard approach K(trans): 86.1% versus 77.8%. The difference in the ROI-averaged K(trans) parameter value, or ΔK(trans) (≡ K(trans) [shutter-speed approach] - K(trans) [standard approach]), had even higher specificity (88.9%). Combined use of ROI analysis and pixel-by-pixel mapping of ΔK(trans) achieved 98.6% specificity at 100% sensitivity.ConclusionThe use of the shutter-speed dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging method has the potential to improve breast cancer diagnostic accuracy and reduce putatively unnecessary biopsy procedures that yield benign pathologic findings.Supplemental materialhttp://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.11102413/-/DC1.

Dataset Information

Fast Temporal Resolution Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI: Histogram Analysis Versus Visual Analysis for Differentiating Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions.

Publications

Fast Temporal Resolution Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI: Histogram Analysis Versus Visual Analysis for Differentiating Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets