Quantitative analysis from ultrafast dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI using population-based versus individual arterial input functions, and comparison with semi-quantitative analysis

•Inline analysis with P-AIF shows equal to analysis with I-AIF in diagnosing breast cancer.•Quantitative analysis for detecting breast cancer provides higher accuracy to semi-quantitative analysis.•Inline quantitative parameters from CDTV can characterize breast cancer. To evaluate the value of inli...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of radiology 2024-07, Vol.176, p.111501, Article 111501
Hauptverfasser: Xie, Tianwen, Zhao, Qiufeng, Fu, Caixia, Grimm, Robert, Dominik Nickel, Marcel, Hu, Xiaoxin, Yue, Lei, Peng, Weijun, Gu, Yajia
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:•Inline analysis with P-AIF shows equal to analysis with I-AIF in diagnosing breast cancer.•Quantitative analysis for detecting breast cancer provides higher accuracy to semi-quantitative analysis.•Inline quantitative parameters from CDTV can characterize breast cancer. To evaluate the value of inline quantitative analysis of ultrafast dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) using a population-based arterial input function (P-AIF) compared with offline quantitative analysis with an individual AIF (I-AIF) and semi-quantitative analysis for diagnosing breast cancer. This prospective study included 99 consecutive patients with 109 lesions (85 malignant and 24 benign). Model-based parameters (Ktrans, kep, and ve) and model-free parameters (washin and washout) were derived from CAIPIRINHA-Dixon-TWIST-VIBE (CDTV) DCE-MRI. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis with forward stepwise covariate selection were performed to identify significant variables. The AUC and F1 score were assessed for semi-quantitative and two quantitative analyses. kep from inline quantitative analysis with P-AIF for diagnosing breast cancer provided an AUC similar to kep from offline quantitative analysis with I-AIF (0.782 vs 0.779, p = 0.954), higher compared to washin from semi-quantitative analysis (0.782 vs 0.630, p = 0.034). Furthermore, the inline quantitative analysis with P-AIF achieved the larger F1 score (0.920) compared with offline quantitative analysis with I-AIF (0.780) and semi-quantitative analysis (0.480). There were no statistically significant differences for kep values between the two quantitative analysis schemes (p = 0.944). The inline quantitative analysis with P-AIF from CDTV in characterizing breast lesions could offer similar diagnostic accuracy to offline quantitative analysis with I-AIF, and higher diagnostic accuracy to semi-quantitative analysis.
ISSN:0720-048X
1872-7727
1872-7727
DOI:10.1016/j.ejrad.2024.111501