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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | European journal of radiology 2024-07, Vol.176, p.111501, Article 111501 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
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 |