Monoexponential, Biexponential, and stretched-exponential models using diffusion-weighted imaging: A quantitative differentiation of breast lesions at 3.0T.

Abstract

Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) plays an important role in the differentiation of malignant and benign breast lesions. To investigate the utility of various diffusion parameters obtained from monoexponential, biexponential, and stretched-exponential DWI models in the differential diagnosis of breast lesions. Prospective. Sixty-one patients (age range: 25-68 years old; mean age: 46 years old) with 31 malignant lesions, 42 benign lesions, and 28 normal breast tissues diagnosed initially by clinical palpation, ultrasonography, or conventional mammography were enrolled in the study from January to September 2016. 3.0T MR scanner, T1 WI, T2 WI, DWI (conventional and multi-b values), dynamic contrast-enhanced. The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) was calculated by monoexponential analysis. The diffusion coefficient (ADCslow ), pseudodiffusion coefficient (ADCfast ), and perfusion fraction (f) were calculated using the biexponential model. The distributed diffusion coefficient (DDC) and water molecular diffusion heterogeneity index (α) were obtained using a stretched-exponential model. All parameters were compared for malignant tumors, benign tumors, and normal breast tissues. A receiver operating characteristic curve was used to compare the ability of these parameters, in order to differentiate benign and malignant breast lesions. All statistical analyses were performed using statistical software (SPSS). ADC, ADCslow , f, DDC, and α values were significantly lower in malignant tumors when compared with normal breast tissues and benign tumors (P < 0.05). However, ADC and f had higher area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values (0.889 and 0.919, respectively). The parameters derived from the biexponential and stretched-exponential DWI could provide additional information for differentiating between benign and malignant breast tumors when compared with conventional diffusion parameters. 4 Technical Efficacy: Stage 4 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:1461-1467.