The Diagnostic Performance of Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging in the Characterization of Breast Tumors: A Meta-Analysis

Zhipeng Li, Xinming Li, Chuan Peng, Wei Dai, Haitao Huang, Xie Li, Chuanmiao Xie, Jianye Liang, Zhipeng Li, Xinming Li, Chuan Peng, Wei Dai, Haitao Huang, Xie Li, Chuanmiao Xie, Jianye Liang

Abstract

Rationale and Objectives: Diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) is a promising imaging technique, but the results regarding the diagnostic performance of DKI in the characterization and classification of breast tumors are inconsistent among published studies. This study aimed to pool all published results to provide more robust evidence of the differential diagnosis between malignant and benign breast tumors using DKI. Methods: Studies on the differential diagnosis of breast tumors using DKI-derived parameters were systemically retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science without a time limit. Review Manager 5.3 was used to calculate the standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals of the mean kurtosis (MK), mean diffusivity (MD), and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC). Stata 12.0 was used to pool the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) as well as the publication bias and heterogeneity of each parameter. Fagan's nomograms were plotted to predict the post-test probabilities. Results: Thirteen studies including 867 malignant and 460 benign breast lesions were analyzed. Most of the included studies showed a low to unclear risk of bias and low concerns regarding applicability. Breast cancer showed a higher MK (SMD = 1.23, P < 0.001) but a lower MD (SMD = -1.29, P < 0.001) and ADC (SMD = -1.21, P < 0.001) than benign tumors. The MK (SMD = -1.36, P = 0.006) rather than the MD (SMD = 0.29, P = 0.20) or ADC (SMD = 0.26, P = 0.24) can further differentiate invasive ductal carcinoma from ductal carcinoma in situ. The DKI-derived MK (sensitivity = 90%, specificity = 88%, DOR = 66) and MD (sensitivity = 86% and specificity = 88%, DOR = 46) demonstrated superior diagnostic performance and post-test probability (65, 64, and 56% for MK, MD, and ADC) in differentiating malignant from benign breast lesions, with a higher sensitivity and specificity than the DWI-derived ADC (sensitivity = 85% and specificity = 83%, DOR = 29). Conclusion: The DKI-derived MK and MD demonstrate a comparable diagnostic performance in the discrimination of breast tumors based on their microstructures and non-Gaussian characteristics. The MK can further differentiate invasive ductal carcinoma from ductal carcinoma in situ.

Keywords: breast tumor; diffusion kurtosis imaging; magnetic resonance imaging; meta-analysis; non-Gaussian.

Copyright © 2020 Li, Li, Peng, Dai, Huang, Li, Xie and Liang.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart detailing the study selection process. Thirteen studies that met the inclusion criteria were included. FN, false negative; FP, false positive; TN, true negative; TP, true positive.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Distribution of the risk of bias and applicability concerns for each included study using QUADAS-2 (A) and a summary methodological quality (B).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plot of the mean value of the mean kurtosis (MK) between malignant and benign breast lesions. The standardized mean differences indicated that breast cancers had a significantly higher MK than benign lesions.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Funnel plot of the (A) mean kurtosis (MK), (B) mean diffusivity (MD), and (C) apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC). No publication bias was observed.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Forest plot of the mean value of the mean diffusivity (MD) between malignant and benign breast lesions. The standardized mean differences indicated that breast cancers had a significantly lower MD than benign lesions.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Forest plot of the mean value of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) between malignant and benign breast lesions. The standardized mean differences indicated that breast cancers had a significantly lower ADC than benign lesions.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Deeks' funnel plots (A–C) and summary receiver operating characteristic (D–F) curve of the mean kurtosis (MK), mean diffusivity (MD), and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in the diagnosis of breast lesions. No publication bias was indicated in the three parameters.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Fagan's nomogram of the (A) mean kurtosis (MK), (B) mean diffusivity (MD), and (C) apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC).

References

    1. Biganzoli L, Cardoso F, Beishon M, Cameron D, Cataliotti L, Coles CE, et al. The requirements of a specialist breast centre. Breast. (2020) 51:65–84. 10.1016/j.breast.2020.02.003
    1. Kacl GM, Liu P, Debatin JF, Garzoli E, Caduff RF, Krestin GP. Detection of breast cancer with conventional mammography and contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Eur Radiol. (1998) 8:194–200. 10.1007/s003300050362
    1. Bennani-Baiti B, Bennani-Baiti N, Baltzer PA. Diagnostic performance of breast magnetic resonance imaging in non-calcified equivocal breast findings: results from a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. (2016) 11:e0160346 10.1371/journal.pone.0160346
    1. Bennani-Baiti B, Baltzer PA. MR imaging for diagnosis of malignancy in mammographic microcalcifications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology. (2017) 283:692–701. 10.1148/radiol.2016161106
    1. Plana MN, Carreira C, Muriel A, Chiva M, Abraira V, Emparanza JI, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in the preoperative assessment of patients with primary breast cancer: systematic review of diagnostic accuracy and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. (2012) 22:26–38. 10.1007/s00330-011-2238-8
    1. Baltzer P, Mann RM, Iima M, Sigmund EE, Clauser P, Gilbert FJ, et al. . Diffusion-weighted imaging of the breast-a consensus and mission statement from the EUSOBI international breast diffusion-weighted imaging working group. Eur Radiol. (2020) 30:1436–50. 10.1007/s00330-019-06510-3
    1. Kishimoto AO, Kataoka M, Iima M, Honda M, Miyake KK, Ohashi A, et al. Evaluation of malignant breast lesions using high-resolution readout-segmented diffusion-weighted echo-planar imaging: comparison with pathology. Magn Reson Med Sci. (2020). 10.2463/mrms.mp.2020-0021. [Epub ahead of print].
    1. Liu W, Wei C, Bai J, Gao X, Zhou L. Histogram analysis of diffusion kurtosis imaging in the differentiation of malignant from benign breast lesions. Eur J Radiol. (2019) 117:156–63. 10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.06.008
    1. Iima M, Honda M, Sigmund EE, Ohno Kishimoto A, Kataoka M, Togashi K. Diffusion MRI of the breast: current status and future directions. J Magn Reson Imaging. (2020) 52:70–90. 10.1002/jmri.26908
    1. Iima M, Nobashi T, Imai H, Koyasu S, Saga T, Nakamoto Y, et al. . Effects of diffusion time on non-Gaussian diffusion and intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) MRI parameters in breast cancer and hepatocellular carcinoma xenograft models. Acta Radiol Open. (2018) 7:2058460117751565. 10.1177/2058460117751565
    1. Jensen JH, Helpern JA, Ramani A, Lu H, Kaczynski K. Diffusional kurtosis imaging: the quantification of non-Gaussian water diffusion by means of magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med. (2005) 53:1432–40. 10.1002/mrm.20508
    1. Van Cauter S, Veraart J, Sijbers J, Peeters RR, Himmelreich U, De Keyzer F, et al. . Gliomas: diffusion kurtosis MR imaging in grading. Radiology. (2012) 263:492–501. 10.1148/radiol.12110927
    1. Anderson SW, Barry B, Soto J, Ozonoff A, O'Brien M, Jara H. Characterizing non-Gaussian, high b-value diffusion in liver fibrosis: stretched exponential and diffusional kurtosis modeling. J Magn Reson Imaging. (2014) 39:827–34. 10.1002/jmri.24234
    1. Wang Q, Li H, Yan X, Wu CJ, Liu XS, Shi HB, et al. . Histogram analysis of diffusion kurtosis magnetic resonance imaging in differentiation of pathologic Gleason grade of prostate cancer. Urol Oncol. (2015) 33:337.e15–24. 10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.05.005
    1. Palm T, Wenkel E, Ohlmeyer S, Janka R, Uder M, Weiland E, et al. . Diffusion kurtosis imaging does not improve differentiation performance of breast lesions in a short clinical protocol. Magn Reson Imaging. (2019) 63:205–16. 10.1016/j.mri.2019.08.007
    1. Park VY, Kim SG, Kim EK, Moon HJ, Yoon JH, Kim MJ. Diffusional kurtosis imaging for differentiation of additional suspicious lesions on preoperative breast MRI of patients with known breast cancer. Magn Reson Imaging. (2019) 62:199–208. 10.1016/j.mri.2019.07.011
    1. Wu J, Yan F, Chai W, Fu C, Yan X, Zhan Y, et al. . Breast cancer recurrence risk prediction using whole-lesion histogram analysis with diffusion kurtosis imaging. Clin Radiol. (2020) 75:239.e1–8. 10.1016/j.crad.2019.10.015
    1. Li T, Hong Y, Kong D, Li K. Histogram analysis of diffusion kurtosis imaging based on whole-volume images of breast lesions. J Magn Reson Imaging. (2020) 51:627–34. 10.1002/jmri.26884
    1. Borlinhas F, Conceicao RC, Ferreira HA. Optimal b-values for diffusion kurtosis imaging in invasive ductal carcinoma versus ductal carcinoma in situ breast lesions. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med. (2019) 42:871–85. 10.1007/s13246-019-00773-2
    1. Huang Y, Lin Y, Hu W, Ma C, Lin W, Wang Z, et al. . Diffusion kurtosis at 3.0T as an in vivo imaging marker for breast cancer characterization: correlation with prognostic factors. J Magn Reson Imaging. (2019) 49:845–56. 10.1002/jmri.26249
    1. Iima M, Kataoka M, Kanao S, Kawai M, Onishi N, Koyasu S, et al. . Variability of non-Gaussian diffusion MRI and intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) measurements in the breast. PLoS ONE. (2018) 13:e0193444. 10.1371/journal.pone.0193444
    1. Iima M, Kataoka M, Kanao S, Onishi N, Kawai M, Ohashi A, et al. . 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. Radiology. (2018) 287:432–41. 10.1148/radiol.2017162853
    1. Sun K, Chen X, Chai W, Fei X, Fu C, Yan X, et al. . Breast cancer: diffusion kurtosis MR imaging-diagnostic accuracy and correlation with clinical-pathologic factors. Radiology. (2015) 277:46–55. 10.1148/radiol.15141625
    1. Nogueira L, Brandao S, Matos E, Nunes RG, Loureiro J, Ramos I, et al. . Application of the diffusion kurtosis model for the study of breast lesions. Eur Radiol. (2014) 24:1197–203. 10.1007/s00330-014-3146-5
    1. Christou A, Ghiatas A, Priovolos D, Veliou K, Bougias H. Accuracy of diffusion kurtosis imaging in characterization of breast lesions. Br J Radiol. (2017) 90:20160873. 10.1259/bjr.20160873
    1. Huang C, Liang J, Lei X, Xu X, Xiao Z, Luo L. Diagnostic performance of perfusion computed tomography for differentiating lung cancer from benign lesions: a meta-analysis. Med Sci Monit. (2019) 25:3485–94. 10.12659/MSM.914206
    1. Suo S, Cheng F, Cao M, Kang J, Wang M, Hua J, et al. . Multiparametric diffusion-weighted imaging in breast lesions: association with pathologic diagnosis and prognostic factors. J Magn Reson Imaging. (2017) 46:740–50. 10.1002/jmri.25612
    1. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. . QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. (2011) 155:529–36. 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009
    1. Cheng Q, Huang J, Liang J, Ma M, Ye K, Shi C, et al. . The diagnostic performance of DCE-MRI in evaluating the pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Front Oncol. (2020) 10:93. 10.3389/fonc.2020.00093
    1. Liang J, Li J, Li Z, Meng T, Chen J, Ma W, et al. . Differentiating the lung lesions using intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging: a meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. (2020) 20:799. 10.1186/s12885-020-07308-z
    1. Liang J, Liu D, Gao P, Zhang D, Chen H, Shi C, et al. . Diagnostic values of DCE-MRI and DSC-MRI for differentiation between high-grade and low-grade gliomas: a comprehensive meta-analysis. Acad Radiol. (2018) 25:338–48. 10.1016/j.acra.2017.10.001
    1. Wu D, Li G, Zhang J, Chang S, Hu J, Dai Y. Characterization of breast tumors using diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI). PLoS ONE. (2014) 9:e113240. 10.1371/journal.pone.0113240
    1. Zhou WP, Zan XY, Hu XY, Liu X, Sudarshan SKP, Yang SD, et al. . Characterization of breast lesions using diffusion kurtosis model-based imaging: an initial experience. J Xray Sci Technol. (2020) 28:157–69. 10.3233/XST-190590
    1. Wang K, Li Z, Wu Z, Zheng Y, Zeng S, E L, et al. . Diagnostic performance of diffusion tensor imaging for characterizing breast tumors: a comprehensive meta-analysis. Front Oncol. (2019) 9:1229. 10.3389/fonc.2019.01229
    1. Falk Delgado A, Nilsson M, van Westen D, Falk Delgado A. Glioma grade discrimination with MR diffusion kurtosis imaging: a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy. Radiology. (2018) 287:119–27. 10.1148/radiol.2017171315
    1. Iima M, Yano K, Kataoka M, Umehana M, Murata K, Kanao S, et al. . Quantitative non-Gaussian diffusion and intravoxel incoherent motion magnetic resonance imaging: differentiation of malignant and benign breast lesions. Invest Radiol. (2015) 50:205–11. 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000094
    1. Si Y, Liu RB. Diagnostic performance of monoexponential DWI versus diffusion kurtosis imaging in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. (2018) 211:358–68. 10.2214/AJR.17.18934
    1. Cao L, Chen J, Duan T, Wang M, Jiang H, Wei Y, et al. . Diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) of hepatocellular carcinoma: correlation with microvascular invasion and histologic grade. Quant Imaging Med Surg. (2019) 9:590–602. 10.21037/qims.2019.02.14
    1. Abdalla G, Sanverdi E, Machado PM, Kwong JSW, Panovska-Griffiths J, Rojas-Garcia A, et al. . Role of diffusional kurtosis imaging in grading of brain gliomas: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. (2018) 8:e025123. 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025123
    1. Zhang L, Tang M, Min Z, Lu J, Lei X, Zhang X. Accuracy of combined dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging for breast cancer detection: a meta-analysis. Acta Radiol. (2016) 57:651–60. 10.1177/0284185115597265

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa