4.5 Article

Assessment of Breast Lesions With Diffusion-Weighted MRI: Comparing the Use of Different b Values

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY
卷 193, 期 4, 页码 1030-1035

出版社

AMER ROENTGEN RAY SOC
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.09.2522

关键词

breast cancer; b values; diffusion-weighted imaging; MRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE. Our purpose was to study the utility of diffusion-weighted MRI in differentiating benign from malignant breast lesions by assessing the best b values. SUBJECT S AND MET HODS. Forty-five women (mean age, 46.1 years) with 52 focal mass breast lesions underwent diffusion-weighted imaging with different b values. The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value of each lesion was calculated from the ADC maps done using five b values (0, 250, 500, 750, and 1,000 s/mm(2)) and using b values of 0 s/mm(2) with each other b value separately (0 and 250 s/mm(2), 0 and 500 s/mm(2), 0 and 750 s/mm(2), 0 and 1,000 s/mm(2)). The mean ADC values were correlated with imaging findings and histopathologic diagnoses. The cutoff ADC value, sensitivity, and specificity of diffusion-weighted imaging to differentiate benign and malignant lesions were calculated in all b value combinations. A p value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS. The mean ADC value was significantly lower for malignant lesions compared to benign lesions (p < 0.0001) in all b value combinations. No statistical difference was seen between the ADC obtained from different b value combinations (p = 0.2581) in the differentiation between benign and malignant lesions. The ADC calculated from b 0 and 750 s/mm(2) was slightly better than the other b value combinations, showing a sensitivity of 92.3% and a specificity of 96.2%. CONCLUSION. Diffusion-weighted imaging is a potential resource as a coadjutant of MRI in the differentiation between benign and malignant lesions. Such imaging can be performed without a significant increase in examination time, especially because it can be done with lower b values.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据