Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in MR mammography (MRM): clinical comparison of echo planar imaging (EPI) and half-Fourier single-shot turbo spin echo (HASTE) diffusion techniques

  • Breast
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) techniques have shown potential to differentiate between benign and malignant neoplasms. However, the diagnostic significance of using DWI under routine conditions remains unclear. This study investigated the use of echo planar imaging (EPI) and half-Fourier acquired single-shot turbo spin echo (HASTE)-DWI with respect to the three parameters: lesion visibility, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements, and size estimation. Following MRM (1.5 T), EPI- and HASTE-DWI were applied in 65 patients. Lesion visibility on DWI was compared with lesion visibility on subtracted contrast-enhanced T1w images (CE-T1w). Statistical tests were applied to diameter, visibility, and ADC value measurements. Seventy-four lesions were identified. ADC value measurements did not differ significantly between the two DWI sequences. The sensitivity and specificity of routine diagnostics (97.4% and 85.7%) were superior to EPI-DWI (87.2% and 82.9%) and HASTE-DWI (76.9% and 88.6%). Selecting only nonmass lesions, DWI did not prove to be of diagnostic value. Lesion demarcation by DWI was significantly lower compared with that by CE-T1w, with EPI-DWI showing the better performance (p < 0.001). No significant differences were found for size measurements between CE-T1w and DWI. Although clearly inferior compared with CE-T1w imaging, both DWI techniques are applicable for lesion assessment and size measurements.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS et al (2004) Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology 233:830–849

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Echevarria JJ, Martin M, Saiz A et al (2006) Overall breast density in MR mammography: diagnostic and therapeutic implications in breast cancer. J Comput Assist Tomogr 30:140–147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sardanelli F, Giuseppetti GM, Panizza P et al (2004) Sensitivity of MRI versus mammography for detecting foci of multifocal, multicentric breast cancer in Fatty and dense breasts using the whole-breast pathologic examination as a gold standard. AJR 183:1149–1157

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Winnekendonk G, Krug B, Warm M et al (2004) Diagnostic value of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast. Rofo 176:688–693

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Houssami N, Ciatto S, Macaskill P et al (2008) Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer. J Clin Oncol 26:3248–3258

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kuhl CK (2007) Current status of breast MR imaging. Part 2. Clinical applications. Radiology 244:672–691

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kuhl CK (2007) The current status of breast MR imaging. Part I. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice. Radiology 244:356–378

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mann RM, Kuhl CK, Kinkel K et al (2008) Breast MRI: guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging. Eur radiol 18:1307–1318

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Baum F, Fischer U, Vosshenrich R et al (2002) Classification of hypervascularized lesions in CE MR imaging of the breast. Eur radiol 12:1087–1092

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Ikeda DM, Hylton NM, Kuhl CK et al (2003) MRI breast imaging reporting and data system atlas, 1 edn. American College of Radiology, Reston

  11. Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S et al (1999) Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 211:101–110

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Malich A, Fischer DR, Wurdinger S et al (2005) Potential MRI interpretation model: differentiation of benign from malignant breast masses. Ajr 185:964–970

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kaiser WA, Zeitler E (1989) MR imaging of the breast: fast imaging sequences with and without Gd-DTPA. Preliminary observations. Radiology 170:681–686

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Guo Y, Cai YQ, Cai ZL et al (2002) Differentiation of clinically benign and malignant breast lesions using diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 16:172–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hatakenaka M, Soeda H, Yabuuchi H et al (2008) Apparent diffusion coefficients of breast tumors: clinical application. Magn Reson Med Sci 7:23–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kinoshita T, Yashiro N, Ihara N et al (2002) Diffusion-weighted half-Fourier single-shot turbo spin echo imaging in breast tumors: differentiation of invasive ductal carcinoma from fibroadenoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr 26:1042–1046

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Luo JD, Liu YY, Zhang XL et al (2007) Application of diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging to differential diagnosis of breast diseases. Ai zheng 26:168–171

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Matsuoka A, Minato M, Harada M et al (2008) Comparison of 3.0-and 1.5-tesla diffusion-weighted imaging in the visibility of breast cancer. Radiat Med 26:15–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Roth Y, Ocherashvilli A, Daniels D et al (2008) Quantification of water compartmentation in cell suspensions by diffusion-weighted and T(2)-weighted MRI. Magn Reson Imaging 26:88–102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rubesova E, Grell AS, De Maertelaer V et al (2006) Quantitative diffusion imaging in breast cancer: a clinical prospective study. J Magn Reson Imaging 24:319–324

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wenkel E, Geppert C, Schulz-Wendtland R et al (2007) Diffusion weighted imaging in breast MRI: comparison of two different pulse sequences. Acad Radiol 14:1077–1083

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Woodhams R, Matsunaga K, Iwabuchi K et al (2005) Diffusion-weighted imaging of malignant breast tumors: the usefulness of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value and ADC map for the detection of malignant breast tumors and evaluation of cancer extension. J Comput Assist Tomogr 29:644–649

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Woodhams R, Matsunaga K, Kan S et al (2005) ADC mapping of benign and malignant breast tumors. Magn Reson Med Sci 4:35–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Marini C, Iacconi C, Giannelli M et al (2007) Quantitative diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the differential diagnosis of breast lesion. Eur radiol 17:2646–2655

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Kaiser W (1985) MRI of the female breast. First clinical results. Arch Int Physiol Biochim 93:67–76

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Kuroki-Suzuki S, Kuroki Y, Nasu K et al (2007) Detecting breast cancer with non-contrast MR imaging: combining diffusion-weighted and STIR imaging. Magn Reson Med Sci 6:21–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Park MJ, Cha ES, Kang BJ et al (2007) The role of diffusion-weighted imaging and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values for breast tumors. Korean J Radiol 8:390–396

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Fitzek C, Mentzel HJ, Fitzek S et al (2003) Echoplanar diffusion-weighted MRI with intravenous gadolinium-DTPA. Neuroradiology 45:592–597

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Liberman L, Mason G, Morris EA et al (2006) Does size matter? Positive predictive value of MRI-detected breast lesions as a function of lesion size. AJR 186:426–430

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Erlanger Allee 101, 07740, Jena, Germany

    P. A. T. Baltzer, D. M. Renz, M. Dietzel, I. Krumbein & W. A. Kaiser

  2. Medical Physics Group, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Clinics Jena, MRI Building “Am Steiger”, Philosophenweg 3, 07743, Jena, Germany

    K.-H. Herrmann, I. Krumbein & J. R. Reichenbach

  3. Institute of Pathology, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Ziegmühlenweg 1, 07740, Jena, Germany

    M. Gajda

  4. Clinic of Gynecology, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Bachstr. 18, 07740, Jena, Germany

    O. Camara

Authors
  1. P. A. T. Baltzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. M. Renz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K.-H. Herrmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Dietzel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. I. Krumbein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. Gajda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. O. Camara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. J. R. Reichenbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. W. A. Kaiser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. A. T. Baltzer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baltzer, P.A.T., Renz, D.M., Herrmann, KH. et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in MR mammography (MRM): clinical comparison of echo planar imaging (EPI) and half-Fourier single-shot turbo spin echo (HASTE) diffusion techniques. Eur Radiol 19, 1612–1620 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1326-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1326-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation