The European Society of Breast Radiology (EUSOBI) established an International Breast DWI working group. The working group consists of clinical breast MRI experts, MRI physicists, and representatives from large vendors of MRI equipment, invited based upon proven expertise in breast MRI and/or in particular breast DWI, representing 25 sites from 16 countries. The aims of the working group are (a) to promote the use of breast DWI into clinical practice by issuing consensus statements and initiate collaborative research where appropriate; (b) to define necessary standards and provide practical guidance for clinical application of breast DWI; (c) to develop a standardized and translatable multisite multivendor quality assurance protocol, especially for multisite research studies; (d) to find consensus on optimal methods for image processing/analysis, visualization, and interpretation; and (e) to work collaboratively with system vendors to improve breast DWI sequences. First consensus recommendations, presented in this paper, include acquisition parameters for standard breast DWI sequences including specifications of b values, fat saturation, spatial resolution, and repetition and echo times. To describe lesions in an objective way, levels of diffusion restriction/hindrance in the breast have been defined based on the published literature on breast DWI. The use of a small ROI placed on the darkest part of the lesion on the ADC map, avoiding necrotic, noisy or non-enhancing lesion voxels is currently recommended. The working group emphasizes the need for standardization and quality assurance before ADC thresholds are applied. The working group encourages further research in advanced diffusion techniques and tailored DWI strategies for specific indications. Key Points • The working group considers breast DWI an essential part of a multiparametric breast MRI protocol and encourages its use. • Basic requirements for routine clinical application of breast DWI are provided, including recommendations on b values, fat saturation, spatial resolution, and other sequence parameters. • Diffusion levels in breast lesions are defined based on meta-analysis data and methods to obtain a reliable ADC value are detailed.

Purpose: To report our preliminary experience with the use of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) diffusion‐weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW‐MRI) and dynamic contrast‐enhanced (DCE)‐MRI alone and in combination for the diagnosis of liver cirrhosis.Materials and Methods: Thirty subjects (16 with noncirrhotic liver, 14 with cirrhosis) were prospectively assessed with IVIM DW‐MRI (n = 27) and DCE‐MRI (n = 20). IVIM parameters included perfusion fraction (PF), pseudodiffusion coefficient (D*), true diffusion coefficient (D), and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC). Model‐free DCE‐MR parameters included time to peak (TTP), upslope, and initial area under the curve at 60 seconds (IAUC60). A dual input single compartmental perfusion model yielded arterial flow (Fa), portal venous flow (Fp), arterial fraction (ART), mean transit time (MTT), and distribution volume (DV). The diagnostic performances for diagnosis of cirrhosis were evaluated for each modality alone and in combination using logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic analyses. IVIM and DCE‐MR parameters were compared using a generalized estimating equations model.Results: PF, D*, D, and ADC values were significantly lower in cirrhosis (P = 0.0056–0.0377), whereas TTP, DV, and MTT were significantly increased in cirrhosis (P = 0.0006–0.0154). There was no correlation between IVIM‐ and DCE‐MRI parameters. The highest Az (areas under the curves) values were observed for ADC (0.808) and TTP‐DV (0.952 for each). The combination of ADC with DV and TTP provided 84.6% sensitivity and 100% specificity for diagnosis of cirrhosis.Conclusion: The combination of DW‐MRI and DCE‐MRI provides an accurate diagnosis of cirrhosis. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2010;31:589–600.

By using biopsy as the reference standard, diffusional kurtosis showed greater relative contrast and sensitivity for cancerous peripheral zone sextants than did apparent diffusion coefficient, as well as greater differentiation between cancerous sextants with low- and high-grade cancer. PurposeTo assess the feasibility of diffusional kurtosis (DK) imaging for distinguishing benign from malignant regions, as well as low- from high-grade malignant regions, within the peripheral zone (PZ) of the prostate in comparison with standard diffusion-weighted (DW) imaging.Materials and MethodsThe institutional review board approved this retrospective HIPAA-compliant study and waived informed consent. Forty-seven patients with prostate cancer underwent 3-T magnetic resonance imaging by using a pelvic phased-array coil and DW imaging (maximum b value, 2000 sec/mm2). Parametric maps were obtained for apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC); the metric DK (K), which represents non-Gaussian diffusion behavior; and corrected diffusion (D) that accounts for this non-Gaussianity. Two radiologists reviewed these maps and measured ADC, D, and K in sextants positive for cancer at biopsy. Data were analyzed by using mixed-model analysis of variance and receiver operating characteristic curves.ResultsSeventy sextan...

Diffusion‐weighted imaging plays important roles in cancer diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment. Although most applications measure restricted diffusion by tumor cellularity, diffusion‐weighted imaging is also sensitive to vascularity through the intravoxel incoherent motion effect. Hypervascularity can confound apparent diffusion coefficient measurements in breast cancer. We acquired multiple b‐value diffusion‐weighted imaging at 3 T in a cohort of breast cancer patients and performed biexponential intravoxel incoherent motion analysis to extract tissue diffusivity (D_t), perfusion fraction (f_p), and pseudodiffusivity (D_p). Results indicated significant differences between normal fibroglandular tissue and malignant lesions in apparent diffusion coefficient mean (±standard deviation) values (2.44 ± 0.30 vs. 1.34 ± 0.39 μm²/msec, P < 0.01) and D_t (2.36 ± 0.38 vs. 1.15 ± 0.35 μm²/msec, P < 0.01). Lesion diffusion‐weighted imaging signals demonstrated biexponential character in comparison to monoexponential normal tissue. There is some differentiation of lesion subtypes (invasive ductal carcinoma vs. other malignant lesions) with f_p (10.5 ± 5.0% vs. 6.9 ± 2.9%, P = 0.06), but less so with D_t (1.14 ± 0.32 μm²/msec vs. 1.18 ± 0.52 μm²/msec, P = 0.88) and D_p (14.9 ± 11.4 μm²/msec vs. 16.1 ± 5.7 μm²/msec, P = 0.75). Comparison of intravoxel incoherent motion biomarkers with contrast enhancement suggests moderate correlations. These results suggest the potential of intravoxel incoherent motion vascular and cellular biomarkers for initial grading, progression monitoring, or treatment assessment of breast tumors. Magn Reson Med, 2011.

We assessed reproducibility and distribution of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) and diffusion-tensor (DT) imaging parameters in healthy renal cortex and medulla (baseline and after hydration or furosemide challenges) and hypothesized that IVIM and DT diffusivities increase with either challenge. PurposeTo assess the reproducibility and the distribution of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) and diffusion-tensor (DT) imaging parameters in healthy renal cortex and medulla at baseline and after hydration or furosemide challenges.Materials and MethodsUsing an institutional review board–approved HIPAA-compliant protocol with written informed consent, IVIM and DT imaging were performed at 3 T in 10 volunteers before and after water loading or furosemide administration. IVIM (apparent diffusion coefficient [ADC], tissue diffusivity [Dt], perfusion fraction [fp], pseudodiffusivity [Dp]) and DT (mean diffusivity [MD], fractional anisotropy [FA], eigenvalues [λi]) imaging parameters and urine output from serial bladder volumes were calculated. (a)Reproducibility was quantified with coefficient of variation, intraclass correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman limits of agreement; (b) contrast and challenge response were quantified with analysis of variance; and (c) Pearson correlations were quantified with...