» Articles » PMID: 26443604

Is There a Systematic Bias of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) Measurements of the Breast if Measured on Different Workstations? An Inter- and Intra-reader Agreement Study

Overview
Journal Eur Radiol
Specialty Radiology
Date 2015 Oct 8
PMID 26443604
Citations 20
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the influence of post-processing systems, intra- and inter-reader agreement on the variability of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements in breast lesions.

Methods: Forty-one patients with 41 biopsy-proven breast lesions gave their informed consent and were included in this prospective IRB-approved study. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations were performed at 1.5 T using an EPI-DWI sequence, with b-values of 0 and 1000 s/mm(2). Two radiologists (R1, R2) reviewed the images in separate sessions and measured the ADC for lesion, using MRI-workstation (S-WS), PACS-workstation (P-WS) and a commercial DICOM viewer (O-SW). Agreement was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland-Altman plots and coefficient of variation (CV).

Results: Thirty-one malignant, two high-risk and eight benign mass-like lesions were analysed. Intra-reader agreement was almost perfect (ICC-R1 = 0.974; ICC-R2 = 0.990) while inter-reader agreement was substantial (ICC from 0.615 to 0.682). Bland-Altman plots revealed a significant bias in ADC values measured between O-SW and S-WS (P = 0.025), no further systematic differences were identified. CV varied from 6.8 % to 7.9 %.

Conclusion: Post-processing systems may have a significant, although minor, impact on ADC measurements in breast lesions. While intra-reader agreement is high, the main source of ADC variability seems to be caused by inter-reader variation.

Key Points: • ADC provides quantitative information on breast lesions independent from the system used. • ADC measurement using different workstations and software systems is generally reliable. • Systematic, but minor, differences may occur between different post-processing systems. • Inter-reader agreement of ADC measurements exceeded intra-reader agreement.

Citing Articles

Evaluation of pretreatment ADC values as predictors of treatment response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer - a multicenter study.

Surov A, Pech M, Meyer H, Bitencourt A, Fujimoto H, Baxter G Cancer Imaging. 2022; 22(1):68.

PMID: 36494872 PMC: 9733082. DOI: 10.1186/s40644-022-00501-2.


Diffusion-Weighted MRI in Patients with Testicular Tumors-Intra- and Interobserver Variability.

Pedersen M, Loft M, Dam C, Rasmussen L, Timm S Curr Oncol. 2022; 29(2):837-847.

PMID: 35200570 PMC: 8871139. DOI: 10.3390/curroncol29020071.


Apparent Diffusion Coefficient-Based Convolutional Neural Network Model Can Be Better Than Sole Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Improve the Differentiation of Invasive Breast Cancer From Breast Ductal Carcinoma .

Yin H, Jiang Y, Xu Z, Huang W, Chen T, Lin G Front Oncol. 2022; 11:805911.

PMID: 35096609 PMC: 8795910. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.805911.


Diffusion weighted imaging of the breast: Performance of standardized breast tumor tissue selection methods in clinical decision making.

Wielema M, Sijens P, Dijkstra H, de Bock G, van Bruggen I, Siegersma J PLoS One. 2021; 16(1):e0245930.

PMID: 33493230 PMC: 7833148. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245930.


Diffusion-weighted Imaging Allows for Downgrading MR BI-RADS 4 Lesions in Contrast-enhanced MRI of the Breast to Avoid Unnecessary Biopsy.

Clauser P, Krug B, Bickel H, Dietzel M, Pinker K, Neuhaus V Clin Cancer Res. 2021; 27(7):1941-1948.

PMID: 33446565 PMC: 8406278. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-3037.


References
1.
Ye X, Gao J, Yang Z, Liu Y . Apparent diffusion coefficient reproducibility of the pancreas measured at different MR scanners using diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013; 40(6):1375-81. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.24492. View

2.
Baltzer P, Benndorf M, Dietzel M, Gajda M, Camara O, Kaiser W . Sensitivity and specificity of unenhanced MR mammography (DWI combined with T2-weighted TSE imaging, ueMRM) for the differentiation of mass lesions. Eur Radiol. 2009; 20(5):1101-10. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-009-1654-5. View

3.
Partridge S, Mullins C, Kurland B, Allain M, DeMartini W, Eby P . Apparent diffusion coefficient values for discriminating benign and malignant breast MRI lesions: effects of lesion type and size. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010; 194(6):1664-73. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.09.3534. View

4.
Woodhams R, Ramadan S, Stanwell P, Sakamoto S, Hata H, Ozaki M . Diffusion-weighted imaging of the breast: principles and clinical applications. Radiographics. 2011; 31(4):1059-84. DOI: 10.1148/rg.314105160. View

5.
Dorrius M, Dijkstra H, Oudkerk M, Sijens P . Effect of b value and pre-admission of contrast on diagnostic accuracy of 1.5-T breast DWI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2014; 24(11):2835-47. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-014-3338-z. View