Noncontrast-Enhanced MR-Based Conductivity Imaging for Breast Cancer Detection and Lesion Differentiation.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in noncontrast-enhanced MRI due to safety concerns for gadolinium contrast agents. PURPOSE: To investigate the clinical feasibility of MR-based conductivity imaging for breast cancer detection and lesion differentiation. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. SUBJECTS: One hundred and ten women, with 112 known cancers and 17 benign lesions (biopsy-proven), scheduled for preoperative MRI. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Non-fat-suppressed T2-weighted turbo spin-echo sequence (T2WI), dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) at 3T. ASSESSMENT: Cancer detectability on each imaging modality was qualitatively evaluated on a per-breast basis: the conductivity maps derived from T2WI were independently reviewed by three radiologists (R1-R3). T2WI, DWI, and pre-operative digital mammography were independently reviewed by three other radiologists (R4-R6). Conductivity and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements (mean, minimum, and maximum) were performed for 112 cancers and 17 benign lesions independently by two radiologists (R1 and R2). Tumor size was measured from surgical specimens. STATISTICAL TESTS: Cancer detection rates were compared using generalized estimating equations. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with cancer detectability. Discriminating ability of conductivity and ADC was evaluated by using the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: Conductivity imaging showed lower cancer detection rates (20%-32%) compared to T2WI (62%-71%), DWI (85%-90%), and mammography (79%-88%) (all P < 0.05). Fatty breast on MRI (odds ratio = 11.8, P < 0.05) and invasive tumor size (odds ratio = 1.7, P < 0.05) were associated with cancer detectability of conductivity imaging. The maximum conductivity showed comparable ability to the mean ADC in discriminating between cancers and benign lesions (AUC = 0.67 [95% CI: 0.59, 0.75] vs. 0.84 [0.76, 0.90], P = 0.06 (R1); 0.65 [0.56, 0.73] vs. 0.82 [0.74, 0.88], P = 0.07 (R2)). DATA CONCLUSION: Although conductivity imaging showed suboptimal performance in breast cancer detection, the quantitative measurement of conductivity showed the potential for lesion differentiation. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

Differentiation of intra-abdominal desmoid tumor from peritoneal seeding based on CT and/or 18F-FDG PET-CT in patients with history of cancer surgery.

PURPOSE: To investigate differential imaging features of intra-abdominal desmoid tumors and peritoneal seeding in patients with history of cancer surgery. METHODS: Thirty-two patients who had a single pathologically proven intra-peritoneal lesion that developed after cancer surgery were enrolled between January 2000 and June 2019. There were 16 desmoid tumors and 16 peritoneal seeding lesions. Portal phase CT and/or 18F-FDG PET findings were analyzed by two radiologists in consensus for the following items: location, size, shape, margin, contour, homogeneity, necrosis, adjacent organ invasion, calcification, intra-lesional fat, peritoneal infiltration, mass effect, and degree of enhancement. Hounsfield units (HU) and maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) of the lesions were measured. Imaging findings were compared using the Chi square test, Fisher's exact test, and student t test. RESULTS: Desmoid tumors frequently showed well-defined margins (9/16) and smooth contours (12/16), whereas peritoneal seeding had ill-defined margins (13/16) and lobulated contours (11/16) (P = 0.028 and 0.013, respectively). Intra-lesional fat was found more frequently in desmoid tumors (7/16) than peritoneal seeding (1/16) (P = 0.014). Desmoid tumors showed iso-attenuation (13/16) compared to psoas muscle in portal phase, while peritoneal seeding depicted high attenuation (12/16) (P = 0.002). Mean HU was significantly lower in desmoid tumors (64.3) than peritoneal seeding lesions (95.1) (P = 0.001). However, the mean SUVmax of desmoid tumors (4.1) did not significantly differ from peritoneal seeding lesions (5.2) (P = 0.519). CONCLUSION: Several CT features including iso-attenuation in portal phase and presence of intra-lesional fat can be helpful in differentiating desmoid tumors from peritoneal seeding in patients with history of intra-abdominal cancer surgery.