Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 30, 2025

Tracking the Mammary Architectural Features and Detecting Breast Cancer with Magnetic Resonance Diffusion Tensor Imaging
Published on: December 15, 2014
Intravoxel Incoherent Motion Diffusion-Weighted Imaging for Quantitative Differentiation of Breast Tumors: A
Jianye Liang1, Sihui Zeng1, Zhipeng Li1
1Department of Medical Imaging, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Abstract:
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.
More Related Videos
08:32Using Computer-based Image Analysis to Improve Quantification of Lung Metastasis in the 4T1 Breast Cancer Model
Published on: October 2, 2020
10:25Author Spotlight: Integrating High-Resolution Intravital Imaging and MRI to Enhance Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Planning
Published on: April 12, 2024
Related Concept Videos
Imaging Studies IV: Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Assessment of Diffusion and Perfusion
The Role of Diffusion in Respiration
Diffusion is the process by which molecules move from an area of higher concentration to an area of lower concentration. In the respiratory system, this...
Imaging Studies III: Computed Tomography
Imaging Studies for Cardiovascular System IV: CMRI