Multi-Site Concordance of Diffusion-Weighted Imaging Quantification for Assessing Prostate Cancer Aggressiveness.

BACKGROUND: Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) is commonly used to detect prostate cancer, and a major clinical challenge is differentiating aggressive from indolent disease. PURPOSE: To compare 14 site-specific parametric fitting implementations applied to the same dataset of whole-mount pathologically validated DWI to test the hypothesis that cancer differentiation varies with different fitting algorithms. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: Thirty-three patients prospectively imaged prior to prostatectomy. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3 T, field-of-view optimized and constrained undistorted single-shot DWI sequence. ASSESSMENT: Datasets, including a noise-free digital reference object (DRO), were distributed to the 14 teams, where locally implemented DWI parameter maps were calculated, including mono-exponential apparent diffusion coefficient (MEADC), kurtosis (K), diffusion kurtosis (DK), bi-exponential diffusion (BID), pseudo-diffusion (BID*), and perfusion fraction (F). The resulting parametric maps were centrally analyzed, where differentiation of benign from cancerous tissue was compared between DWI parameters and the fitting algorithms with a receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (ROC AUC). STATISTICAL TEST: Levene's test, P < 0.05 corrected for multiple comparisons was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The DRO results indicated minimal discordance between sites. Comparison across sites indicated that K, DK, and MEADC had significantly higher prostate cancer detection capability (AUC range = 0.72-0.76, 0.76-0.81, and 0.76-0.80 respectively) as compared to bi-exponential parameters (BID, BID*, F) which had lower AUC and greater between site variation (AUC range = 0.53-0.80, 0.51-0.81, and 0.52-0.80 respectively). Post-processing parameters also affected the resulting AUC, moving from, for example, 0.75 to 0.87 for MEADC varying cluster size. DATA CONCLUSION: We found that conventional diffusion models had consistent performance at differentiating prostate cancer from benign tissue. Our results also indicated that post-processing decisions on DWI data can affect sensitivity and specificity when applied to radiological-pathological studies in prostate cancer. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3.

Discrimination of Malignant and Benign Breast Lesions Using Quantitative Multiparametric MRI: A Preliminary Study.

We aimed to compare diagnostic performance in discriminating malignant and benign breast lesions between two intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) analysis methods for diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) data and between DW- and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI, and to determine if combining DW- and DCE-MRI further improves diagnostic accuracy. DW-MRI with 12 b-values and DCE-MRI were performed on 26 patients with 28 suspicious breast lesions before biopsies. The traditional biexponential fitting and a 3-b-value method were used for independent IVIM analysis of the DW-MRI data. Simulations were performed to evaluate errors in IVIM parameter estimations by the two methods across a range of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Pharmacokinetic modeling of DCE-MRI data was performed. Conventional radiological MRI reading yielded 86% sensitivity and 21% specificity in breast cancer diagnosis. At the same sensitivity, specificity of individual DCE- and DW-MRI markers improved to 36%-57% and that of combined DCE- or combined DW-MRI markers to 57%-71%, with DCE-MRI markers showing better diagnostic performance. The combination of DCE- and DW-MRI markers further improved specificity to 86%-93% and the improvements in diagnostic accuracy were statistically significant (P < .05) when compared with standard clinical MRI reading and most individual markers. At low breast DW-MRI SNR values (<50), like those typically seen in clinical studies, the 3-b-value approach for IVIM analysis generates markers with smaller errors and with comparable or better diagnostic performances compared with biexponential fitting. This suggests that the 3-b-value method could be an optimal IVIM-MRI method to be combined with DCE-MRI for improved diagnostic accuracy.