Determining the Diagnostic Value of DWIBS in the Diagnosis of Breast Lesions Compared to Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI: A Retrospective Observational Study.
{"title":"Determining the Diagnostic Value of DWIBS in the Diagnosis of Breast Lesions Compared to Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI: A Retrospective Observational Study.","authors":"Maryam Farghadani, Safura Mozafari, Maryam Riahinejad, Mashid Haghighi, Reza Eshraghi Samani, Amir Mohammad Taravati, Koushan Rostami, Seyedeh Ghazal Shahrokh, Arezoo Sadeghian","doi":"10.4103/abr.abr_283_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Diffusion-weighted imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS) is a new imaging tool for the diagnosis of breast lesions. This study aims to compare DWIBS with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) sequences.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Eighty consecutive patients underwent both CE-MRI and DWIBS images. DWIBS was assessed qualitatively and quantitatively using the apparent diffusion coefficient mapping. A threshold of 1.44 × 10<sup>-3</sup> mm<sup>2</sup>/s was considered as a cutoff value between malignant and benign lesions. CE-MRI images were evaluated based on a combination of kinetic and morphological information and reported using Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System lexicon. Statistical analysis was performed for both sequences based on pathologic findings as a gold standard.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-five out of 80 lesions (69%) were benign, and 25 malignant lesions (31%) have been reported. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for CE-MRI were 100, 38, 42, and 100%, respectively, and those for DWIBS were 77, 70, 53, and 87%, respectively. By comparing DWIBS and CE-MRI data, no statistically significant difference was reported.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>DWIBS can be used as an effective alternative for breast CE-MRI in cases of contradictions of IV contrast injection.</p>","PeriodicalId":94292,"journal":{"name":"Advanced biomedical research","volume":"14 ","pages":"6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11981034/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advanced biomedical research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/abr.abr_283_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Diffusion-weighted imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS) is a new imaging tool for the diagnosis of breast lesions. This study aims to compare DWIBS with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) sequences.
Materials and methods: Eighty consecutive patients underwent both CE-MRI and DWIBS images. DWIBS was assessed qualitatively and quantitatively using the apparent diffusion coefficient mapping. A threshold of 1.44 × 10-3 mm2/s was considered as a cutoff value between malignant and benign lesions. CE-MRI images were evaluated based on a combination of kinetic and morphological information and reported using Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System lexicon. Statistical analysis was performed for both sequences based on pathologic findings as a gold standard.
Results: Fifty-five out of 80 lesions (69%) were benign, and 25 malignant lesions (31%) have been reported. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for CE-MRI were 100, 38, 42, and 100%, respectively, and those for DWIBS were 77, 70, 53, and 87%, respectively. By comparing DWIBS and CE-MRI data, no statistically significant difference was reported.
Conclusion: DWIBS can be used as an effective alternative for breast CE-MRI in cases of contradictions of IV contrast injection.