Turbo Spin-echo Diffusion-weighted Imaging Compared with Single-shot Echo-planar Diffusion-weighted Imaging: Image Quality and Diagnostic Performance When Differentiating between Ductal Carcinoma in situ and Invasive Ductal Carcinoma

PURPOSE: To compare the image quality between turbo spin-echo (TSE)-diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) and single-shot echo-planar imaging (EPI)-DWI, and to verify the diagnostic performance of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) parameters of the two techniques by using histogram analysis in terms of differentiation between ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) lesions. METHODS: Ninety-four women with 94 lesions diagnosed as breast cancer by surgery underwent IRB-approved preoperative magnetic resonance imaging, including TSE and EPI-DWI with b-values of 50 and 850 s/mm(2). Twenty lesions were identified as DCIS and 74 as IDC. Image quality [signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and geometric distortion] was evaluated quantitatively and compared between the TSE and EPI-DWI. A histogram analysis of the entire tumor voxel-based ADC data was performed, and the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentile values of each technique were compared between DCIS and IDC lesions. RESULTS: The SNR and CNR of TSE-DWI were significantly higher than those of EPI-DWI (P < 0.0001 and < 0.0001). The geometric distortion of TSE-DWI was significantly lower than that of EPI-DWI (P < 0.0001). In TSE-DWI, the 10th, 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile values were significantly different between the DCIS and IDC lesions (P = 0.0010, 0.0004, 0.0008, and 0.0044, respectively). In EPI-DWI, the 50th and 75th percentile values were significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.0009 and 0.0093). There was no significant difference in the area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic analysis of the 10th, 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile values of TSE-DWI, and the 50th and 75th percentile values of EPI-DWI (P = 0.29). CONCLUSION: The image quality of TSE-DWI was better than that of EPI-DWI. DCIS lesions were distinguished from IDC lesions with a wider range of percentile values in TSE-DWI than in EPI-DWI, although diagnostic performance was not significantly different between the techniques.