Image quality and diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted breast magnetic resonance imaging: Comparison of acquired and computed images

Performance of Diffusion-weighted Imaging-based Noncontrast MRI Protocols for Diagnosis of Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) is increasingly recognized as a powerful diagnostic tool and tested alternative to contrast-enhanced (CE) breast MRI. Purpose To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis that assesses the diagnostic performance of DWI-based noncontrast MRI protocols (ncDWI) for the diagnosis of breast cancer. Materials and Methods A systematic literature search in PubMed for articles published from January 1985 to September 2023 was performed. Studies were excluded if they investigated malignant lesions or selected patients and/or lesions only, used DWI as an adjunct technique to CE MRI, or were technical studies. Statistical analysis included pooling of diagnostic accuracy and investigating between-study heterogeneity. Additional subgroup comparisons of ncDWI to CE MRI and standard mammography were performed. Results A total of 28 studies were included, with 4406 lesions (1676 malignant, 2730 benign) in 3787 patients. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of ncDWI were 86.5% (95% CI: 81.4, 90.4) and 83.5% (95% CI: 76.9, 88.6), and both measures presented with high between-study heterogeneity (I 2 = 81.6% and 91.6%, respectively; P < .001). CE MRI (18 studies) had higher sensitivity than ncDWI (95.1% [95% CI: 92.9, 96.7] vs 88.9% [95% CI: 82.4, 93.1], P = .004) at similar specificity (82.2% [95% CI: 75.0, 87.7] vs 82.0% [95% CI: 74.8, 87.5], P = .97). Compared with ncDWI, mammography (five studies) showed no evidence of a statistical difference for sensitivity (80.3% [95% CI: 56.3, 93.3] vs 56.7%; [95% CI: 41.9, 70.4], respectively; P = .09) or specificity (89.9% [95% CI: 85.5, 93.1] vs 90% [95% CI: 61.3, 98.1], respectively; P = .62), but ncDWI had a higher area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (0.93 [95% CI: 0.91, 0.95] vs 0.78 [95% CI: 0.74, 0.81], P < .001). Conclusion A direct comparison with CE MRI showed a modestly lower sensitivity at similar specificity for ncDWI, and higher diagnostic performance indexes for ncDWI than standard mammography. Heterogeneity was high, thus these results must be interpreted with caution. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Kataoka and Iima in this issue.

Evaluations of the diagnostic performance of ZOOMit diffusion-weighted imaging and conventional diffusion-weighted imaging for breast lesions

Background

Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) is valuable in the screening, diagnosis, and grading of breast lesions. However, conventional DWI (C-DWI) is prone to chemical shift and distortion. ZOOMit DWI (Z-DWI), as an advanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technique, applies two spatially selective parallel excitation pulses to focus sampling in the hope of obtaining more valuable information. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the image quality and feasibility of Z-DWI with those of C-DWI in breast lesions.

Methods

The study included 51 patients with breast lesions who underwent breast MRI from May 2021 to February 2022. All patients received Z-DWI and C-DWI sequences, with b values selected as 50 and 800 s/mm2 (Z-DWIb50, Z-DWIb800, C-DWIb50, and C-DWIb800). Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values based on Z-DWI and C-DWI were calculated. For qualitative analysis, four image quality parameters were selected and assessed on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = poor and 4 = excellent). For quantitative analysis, ADC, relative ADC (rADC), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and tumor-to-parenchymal contrast (TPC) values were selected for comparison.

Results

Z-DWI had higher scores compared to C-DWI in terms of lesion conspicuity, anatomical details, distortion and artifacts, and overall image quality (P<0.05). Meanwhile, the agreement between the two readers was reasonably good [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) range, 0.360-0.881]. The SNR of Z-DWIb800 was better than that of C-DWIb800 (P<0.001). The Z-DWI ADC and rADC values of breast lesions were statistically significantly lower than those of C-DWI (mean ADC: P<0.001; rADC; P=0.005).

Conclusions

Z-DWI sequences were shown to have superior image quality. The ADC map of Z-DWI is more conducive to the imaging evaluation of breast lesions.

Effects of fitting methods, high b-values and image quality on diffusion and perfusion quantification and reproducibility in the calf

PURPOSES

The study aimed to optimize diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) image acquisition and analysis protocols in calf muscles by investigating the effects of different model-fitting methods, image quality, and use of high b-value and constraints on parameters of interest (POIs). The optimized modeling methods were used to select the optimal combinations of b-values, which will allow shorter acquisition time while achieving the same reliability as that obtained using 16 b-values.

METHODS

Test-retest baseline and high-quality DWI images of ten healthy volunteers were acquired on a 3T MR scanner, using 16 b-values, including a high b-value of 1200 s/mm², and structural T1-weighted images for calf muscle delineation. Three and six different fitting methods were used to derive ADC from monoexponential (ME) model and D_d, f_p, and D_p from intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) model, with or without the high b-value. The optimized ME and IVIM models were then used to determine the optimal combinations of b-values, obtainable with the least number of b-values, using the selection criteria of coefficient of variance (CV) ≤10% for all POIs.

RESULTS

The find minimum multivariate algorithm was more flexible and yielded smaller fitting errors. The 2-steps fitting method, with fixed D_d, performed the best for IVIM model. The inclusion of high b-value reduced outliers, while constraints improved 2-steps fitting only.

CONCLUSIONS

The optimal numbers of b-values for ME and IVIM models were nine and six b-values respectively. Test-retest reliability analyses showed that only ADC and D_d were reliable for calf diffusion evaluation, with CVs of 7.22% and 4.09%.