Value of diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) and apparent diffusion coefficient factor (ADC) calculation in differentiation of solid breast lesions

Distinguishing between benign and malignant breast lesions using diffusion weighted imaging and intravoxel incoherent motion: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

We sought to evaluate the diagnostic performance of diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) and intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) for distinguishing between benign and malignant breast tumors by performing a meta-analysis.

METHODS

We comprehensively searched the electronic databases PubMed and Embase from January 2000 to April 2020 for studies in English. Studies were included if they reported the sensitivity and specificity for identifying benign and malignant breast lesions using DWI or IVIM. Studies were reviewed according to QUADAS-2. The data inhomogeneity and publication bias were also assessed. In order to explore the influence of different field strengths and different b values on diagnostic efficiency, we conducted subgroup analysis.

RESULTS

We analyzed 79 studies, which included a total of 6294 patients with 4091 malignant lesions and 2793 benign lesions. Overall, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of ADC for detecting malignant breast tumors were 0.87 (0.86-0.88) and 0.80 (0.78-0.81), respectively. The PLR was 5.09 (4.16-6.24); the NLR was 0.15 (0.13-0.18); and the DOR was 38.95 (28.87-52.54). The AUC value was 0.9297. The highest performing parameter for IVIM was tissue diffusivity (D), and the pooled sensitivity and specificity was 0.85 (0.82-0.88) and 0.87(0.83-0.90), respectively; the PLR was 5.65 (3.91-8.18); the NLR was 0.17 (0.12-0.26); and the DOR was 38.44 (23.57-62.69). The AUC value was 0.9265. Most of parameters demonstrated considerable statistically significant heterogeneity (P < 0.05, I²>50 %) except the pooled DOR, PLR of D and the pooled DOR and NLR of D*.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis indicated that DWI and IVIM had high sensitivity and specificity in the differential diagnosis of breast lesions; and compared with DWI, IVIM could not further increase the diagnostic performance. There was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy.

A Meta-analysis of the Diagnostic Performance of Diffusion MRI for Breast Lesion Characterization

Background Various techniques are available to assess diffusion properties of breast lesions as a marker of malignancy at MRI. The diagnostic performance of these diffusion markers has not been comprehensively assessed. Purpose To compare by meta-analysis the diagnostic performance of parameters from diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), diffusion-tensor imaging (DTI), and intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) in the differential diagnosis of malignant and benign breast lesions. Materials and Methods PubMed and Embase databases were searched from January to March 2018 for studies in English that assessed the diagnostic performance of DWI, DTI, and IVIM in the breast. Studies were reviewed according to eligibility and exclusion criteria. Publication bias and heterogeneity between studies were assessed. Pooled summary estimates for sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve were obtained for each parameter by using a bivariate model. A subanalysis investigated the effect of MRI parameters on diagnostic performance by using a Student t test or a one-way analysis of variance. Results From 73 eligible studies, 6791 lesions (3930 malignant and 2861 benign) were included. Publication bias was evident for studies that evaluated apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC). Significant heterogeneity (P < .05) was present for all parameters except the perfusion fraction (f). The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve for ADC was 89%, 82%, and 0.92, respectively. The highest performing parameter for DTI was the prime diffusion coefficient (λ1), and pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve was 93%, 90%, and 0.94, respectively. The highest performing parameter for IVIM was tissue diffusivity (D), and the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve was 88%, 79%, and 0.90. Choice of MRI parameters had no significant effect on diagnostic performance. Conclusion Diffusion-weighted imaging, diffusion-tensor imaging, and intravoxel incoherent motion have comparable diagnostic accuracy with high sensitivity and specificity. Intravoxel incoherent motion is comparable to apparent diffusion coefficient. Diffusion-tensor imaging is potentially promising but to date the number of studies is limited. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article.