Assessment of breast mass morphology with diffusion-weighted MRI: Beyond apparent diffusion coefficient

Abstract

Background: Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) is a noncontrast-enhanced MRI technique. There are new promising studies on the use of DWI as a part of the enhanced or unenhanced abbreviated breast MRI protocols. Purpose: To evaluate the ability of breast DWI in the assessment of mass morphology and determine the contribution of this morphologic evaluation in their characterization. Study Type: Retrospective. Population: In all, 213 consecutive women were breast MR imaged and had a later confirmed diagnosis. Field Strength/Sequence: Breast dynamic contrast-enhanced-MRI (DCE-MRI) and DWI at 1.5T. Assessment: After Institutional Review Board approval, two radiologists first independently, and later in consensus, evaluated the visibility and morphology of the 143 malignant, 70 benign masses on DWI and DCE-MRI in separate sessions, blindly. Shape, margin, and internal pattern of the masses were evaluated according to BI-RADS lexicon. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and tumor size were measured by one radiologist. Statistical Tests: Consistency between imaging methods and readers was evaluated with Cohen's kappa statistics. Multivariate analysis was applied to find the best predictors of malignancy. Results: Tumor visibility on DWI was high to moderate in at least 88% of cases. Consistency between DWI and DCE-MRI was substantial (kappa ?0.757) for shape and margin and moderate (kappa = 0.505) for internal pattern. Interobserver agreement was substantial to moderate for all morphologic parameters (kappa ?0.596). Morphology evaluated on DWI provided 83–84% accuracy in discriminating malignant from benign masses. ADC alone provided 90–91% accuracy. Both morphologic parameters and ADC were significantly associated with malignancy on multivariate analysis and provided 91–93% accuracy. Data Conclusion: DWI might be used not only for ADC evaluation but also for the morphological evaluation of breast masses to characterize them. Level of Evidence: 3. Technical Efficacy: Stage 2. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;48:1668–1677. © 2018 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine