Online citations, reference lists, and bibliographies.
← Back to Search

Intravoxel Incoherent Motion Diffusion-Weighted Imaging For Quantitative Differentiation Of Breast Tumors: A Meta-Analysis

J. Liang, Sihui Zeng, Zhi-peng Li, Y. Kong, T. Meng, C. Zhou, Jieting Chen, Yao-pan Wu, Ni He
Published 2020 · Medicine

Save to my Library
Download PDF
Analyze on Scholarcy
Objectives: The diagnostic performance of intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion–weighted imaging (IVIM-DWI) in the differential diagnosis of breast tumors remains debatable among published studies. Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to pool relevant evidence regarding the diagnostic performance of IVIM-DWI in the differential diagnosis of breast tumors. Methods: Studies on the differential diagnosis of breast lesions using IVIM-DWI were systemically searched in the PubMed, Embase and Web of Science databases in recent 10 years. The standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), tissue diffusivity (D), pseudodiffusivity (D*), and perfusion fraction (f) were calculated using Review Manager 5.3, and Stata 12.0 was used to pool the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC), as well as assess publication bias and heterogeneity. Fagan's nomogram was used to predict the posttest probabilities. Results: Sixteen studies comprising 1,355 malignant and 362 benign breast lesions were included. Most of these studies showed a low to unclear risk of bias and low concerns regarding applicability. Breast cancer had significant lower ADC (SMD = −1.38, P < 0.001) and D values (SMD = −1.50, P < 0.001), and higher f value (SMD = 0.89, P = 0.001) than benign lesions, except D* value (SMD = −0.30, P = 0.20). Invasive ductal carcinoma showed lower ADC (SMD = 1.34, P = 0.01) and D values (SMD = 1.04, P = 0.001) than ductal carcinoma in situ. D value demonstrated the best diagnostic performance (sensitivity = 86%, specificity = 86%, AUC = 0.91) and highest post-test probability (61, 48, 46, and 34% for D, ADC, f, and D* values) in the differential diagnosis of breast tumors, followed by ADC (sensitivity = 76%, specificity = 79%, AUC = 0.85), f (sensitivity = 80%, specificity = 76%, AUC = 0.85) and D* values (sensitivity = 84%, specificity = 59%, AUC = 0.71). Conclusion: IVIM-DWI parameters are adequate and superior to the ADC in the differentiation of breast tumors. ADC and D values can further differentiate invasive ductal carcinoma from ductal carcinoma in situ. IVIM-DWI is also superior in identifying lymph node metastasis, histologic grade, and hormone receptors, and HER2 and Ki-67 status.
This paper references
Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion‐weighted MRI at 3.0 T differentiates malignant breast lesions from benign lesions and breast parenchyma
L. Bokacheva (2014)
Diagnostic Performance of Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Non-Calcified Equivocal Breast Findings: Results from a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
B. Bennani-Baiti (2016)
The value of diffusion-weighted imaging based on monoexponential and biexponential models for the diagnosis of benign and malignant lung nodules and masses.
Jianqin Jiang (2020)
Multiparametric diffusion‐weighted imaging in breast lesions: Association with pathologic diagnosis and prognostic factors
S. Suo (2017)
Differentiating the lung lesions using Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging: a meta-analysis
Jianye Liang (2020)
Diagnostic Performance of Perfusion Computed Tomography for Differentiating Lung Cancer from Benign Lesions: A Meta-Analysis
Cuiqing Huang (2019)
Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted MR imaging of breast cancer: association with histopathological features and subtypes.
Yunju Kim (2016)
Diffusion-weighted imaging of the breast—a consensus and mission statement from the EUSOBI International Breast Diffusion-Weighted Imaging working group
P. Baltzer (2019)
Imaging and Cancer: Research Strategy of the American College of Radiology Imaging NetworkAberle DR, Chiles C, Gatsonis C, et al (Univ of California, Los Angeles; Wake Forest Univ, Winston-Salem, NC; Brown Univ, Providence, RI; et al) Radiology 235:741–751, 2005§
C. Maynard (2006)
Intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging in breast cancer : quantitative analysis for characterizing lesions
N. Lin (2017)
Intravoxel incoherent motion magnetic resonance imaging for breast cancer: A comparison with benign lesions and evaluation of heterogeneity in different tumor regions with prognostic factors and molecular classification
M. Zhao (2018)
Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion‐weighted MRI of invasive breast cancer: Correlation with prognostic factors and kinetic features acquired with computer‐aided diagnosis
S. Song (2019)
Imaging and cancer: research strategy of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network.
D. Aberle (2005)
Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging versus dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: comparison of the diagnostic performance of perfusionrelated parameters in breast
L Jiang (2018)
Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries
F. Bray (2018)
Intravoxel incoherentmotion and ADC measurements for differentiating benign from malignant thyroid nodules: utilizing the most repeatable region of interest delineation at 3.0 T
SongM (2020)
Intravoxel Incoherent Motion and Quantitative Non-Gaussian Diffusion MR Imaging: Evaluation of the Diagnostic and Prognostic Value of Several Markers of Malignant and Benign Breast Lesions.
M. Iima (2018)
Evaluation of breast cancer using intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) histogram analysis: comparison with malignant status, histological subtype, and molecular prognostic factors
G. Cho (2015)
Dynamic MR imaging of invasive breast cancer: correlation with tumour grade and other histological factors.
S. Mussurakis (1997)
Optimization of intra‐voxel incoherent motion measurement in diffusion‐weighted imaging of breast cancer
Wenjing Chen (2017)
Intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging for breast lesions: comparison and correlation with pharmacokinetic evaluation from dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging
C. Liu (2016)
MR imaging of intravoxel incoherent motions: application to diffusion and perfusion in neurologic disorders.
D. Le Bihan (1986)
Differentiation Between Luminal-A and Luminal-B Breast Cancer Using Intravoxel Incoherent Motion and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
H. Kawashima (2017)
Intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM)‐derived parameters in diffusion‐weighted MRI: Associations with prognostic factors in invasive ductal carcinoma
Y. J. Lee (2017)
Intravoxel incoherent motion and ADC measurements for differentiating benign from malignant thyroid nodules: utilizing the most repeatable region of interest delineation at 3.0 T
M. Song (2020)
Intravoxel incoherent motion and ADC measurements for differentiating benign from malignant thyroid nodules: utilizing the most repeatable region of interest delineation at 3.0 T. Cancer Imaging
M Song (2020)
Differentiation of prostate cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia: comparisons of the histogram analysis of intravoxel incoherent motion and monoexponential model with in-bore MR-guided biopsy as pathological reference
Yadong Cui (2019)
Diagnostic Values of DCE-MRI and DSC-MRI for Differentiation Between High-grade and Low-grade Gliomas: A Comprehensive Meta-analysis.
J. Liang (2018)
Magnetic resonance imaging in the preoperative assessment of patients with primary breast cancer: systematic review of diagnostic accuracy and meta-analysis
M. Plana (2011)
Comparative Study of Amide Proton Transfer‐Weighted Imaging and Intravoxel Incoherent Motion Imaging in Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Evaluation
Nan Meng (2020)
Quantitative evaluation of intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging (IVIM) for differential diagnosis and grading prediction of benign and malignant breast lesions
Xijin Mao (2018)
QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies
P. Whiting (2011)
Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging as an adjunct to dynamic contrastenhanced MRI to improve accuracy of the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant breast lesions
D Ma (2017)
Evaluation of the Prognostic Role of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor and Microvessel Density in Stages I and II Breast Cancer Patients
V. Ludovini (2004)
Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging as an adjunct to dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI to improve accuracy of the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant breast lesions.
Dejing Ma (2017)
Monoexponential, Biexponential, and stretched‐exponential models using diffusion‐weighted imaging: A quantitative differentiation of breast lesions at 3.0T
Ya-Nan Jin (2019)
Microvessel Density and Status of p53 Protein as Potential Prognostic Factors for Adjuvant Anthracycline Chemotherapy in Retrospective Analysis of Early Breast Cancer Patients Group
B. Biesaga (2012)
Contribution of IVIM to Conventional Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced and Diffusion-Weighted MRI in Differentiating Benign from Malignant Breast Masses
Q. Wang (2016)
The Diagnostic Performance of DCE-MRI in Evaluating the Pathological Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis
Qingqing Cheng (2020)
MRI as a diagnostic biomarker for differentiating primary central nervous system lymphoma from glioblastoma: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
C. Suh (2019)
Semi‐automated quantitative intravoxel incoherent motion analysis and its implementation in breast diffusion‐weighted imaging
H. Dijkstra (2016)
Diagnostic Performance of Diffusion Tensor Imaging for Characterizing Breast Tumors: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis
K. Wang (2019)
Intravoxel Incoherent Motion Diffusion-Weighted Imaging Versus Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of Perfusion-Related Parameters in Breast
L. Jiang (2018)

Semantic Scholar Logo Some data provided by SemanticScholar