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

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±0.29x10-3 cm2/sec vs. 1.61±0.50x10-3 cm2/sec for the malignant and benign lesions, respectively, p=0.03). A cut-off value of 1.30x10-3 mm2/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. 1. Sasieni PD, Shelton J, Ormiston-Smith N, Thomson CS, Silcocks PB. What is the lifetime risk of developing cancer? The effect of adjusting for multiple primaries. Br J Cancer 2011;105:460-5. [CrossRef]
2. 2. Malone KE, Daling JR, Thompson JD, O’Brien CA, Francisco LV, Ostrander EA. BRCA1 mutations and breast cancer in the general population: analyses in women before age 35 years and in women before age 45 years with first-degree family history. JAMA 1998;279:922-9. [CrossRef]
3. 3. Soerjomataram I, Louwman WJ, van der Sangen MJC, Roumen RM, Coebergh JW. Increased risk of second malignancies after in situ breast carcinoma in a population based registry. Br J Cancer 2006; 95:393-97. [CrossRef]
4. 4. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg R, Rutter CM et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:168-75. [CrossRef]
5. 5. Rosenberg RD, Hunt WC, Williamson MR, Gilliland FD, Wiest PW, Kelsey CA et al. Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183,134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Radiology 1998;209:511-8. [CrossRef]
6. 6. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V. Likelihood ratios for modern screening mammography. Risk of breast cancer based on age and mammographic interpretation. JAMA 1996;276:39-43. [CrossRef]
7. 7. Wendie A. Berg, Jeffrey D. Blume, Jean B. Cormack, Ellen B. Mendelson, Daniel Lehrer, Marcela Böhm-Vélez et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008;299:2151-63. [CrossRef]