DCE-TI Case Study

995 Words4 Pages
(18) who stated that we could acquire general information about tumor vascular physiology, interstitial space volume and prognostic factor by analyzing TIC without a complicated acquisition process.
In our study we found that DCE-MRI had sensitivity
(92.3%), specificity (81%) and accuracy (85.3%).These results were compared to that of Kul et al. (19) who reported 75.7% sensitivity, 97.5% specificity and 88.1% accuracy. Overlap in morphologic characteristics and kinetic features of malignant and benign lesions caused improper classifications. In an attempt to increase diagnostic efficacy, mainly the specificity of breast MR, we evaluated the additional role of DWI and
We ensured that DWI was performed prior to contrast enhancement to
…show more content…
Our 34 studied cases were classified according to diffusion pattern in the detected lesion into two groups; G.I. included 25 patients without restricted diffusion
(74%) and G.II. Included 9 patients with restricted diffusion
(26%). The mean ADC value was significantly lower
(0.5–0.9 • 10_3 mm2/s) for malignant lesion in comparison with that of benign lesions (1.7–2.7 • 10_3 mm2/s).
Out of 10 patients with malignant lesion of our study 6 patients showed restricted diffusion and out of 21 patients with benign breast lesions 19 patients showed non-restricted diffusion.
In our study we found significant difference between
ADC values of malignant and benign breast lesions, assuming a threshold of 1.2 • 10_3 mm2/s. Similarly an 2014 by Nogeria et al. (23) study, proved DWI with complementary ADC values to be useful for the detection and characterization of breast lesion where mean ADCs of 1.99 ± 0.27 • 10_3 mm2/s,
1.08± 0.25 • 10_3 mm2/s, and 1.74± 0.35 • 10_3 mm2/s, were obtained for normal tissue, malignant, and benign lesion respectively. Our study reported a raised specificity from 81% to 90.5% and a slightly improved PPV from 75% to 77.8% after combining DWI to DCE-MRI without any improvement in sensitivity (53.8%). NPV was 76% and accuracy was 76.5%.
These results agreed with Kul et al. (19) who reported an improved specificity (86.5%), sensitivity (91.5%), PPV
(89.6%), NPV (88.9%) and accuracy (89.3%). An older study by Sonmez (24) shared

More about DCE-TI Case Study

Get Access