[Diagnostic value of quantitative pharmacokinetic parameters and relative quantitative pharmacokinetic parameters in breast lesions with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI].

Objective: To explore the differential between the value of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI quantitative pharmacokinetic parameters and relative pharmacokinetic quantitative parameters in breast lesions. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 255 patients(262 breast lesions) who was obtained by clinical palpation , ultrasound or full-field digital mammography , and then all lessions were pathologically confirmed in Zhongda Hospital, Southeast University from May 2012 to May 2016. A 3.0 T MRI scanner was used to obtain the quantitative MR pharmacokinetic parameters: volume transfer constant (K(trans)), exchange rate constant (k(ep))and extravascular extracellular volume fraction (V(e)). And measured the quantitative pharmacokinetic parameters of normal glands tissues which on the same side of the same level of the lesions; and then calculated the value of relative pharmacokinetic parameters: rK(rans)、rk(ep) and rV(e).To explore the diagnostic value of two pharmacokinetic parameters in differential diagnosis of benign and malignant breast lesions using receiver operating curves and model of logistic regression. Results: (1)There were significant differences between benign lesions and malignant lesions in K(trans) and k(ep) (t=15.489, 15.022, respectively, P 0.05). The areas under the ROC curve(AUC)of K(trans), k(ep) and V(e) between malignant and benign lesions were 0.933, 0.948 and 0.387, the sensitivity of K(trans), k(ep) and V(e) were 77.1%, 85.0%, 51.0% , and the specificity of K(trans), k(ep) and V(e) were 96.3%, 93.6%, 60.8% for the differential diagnosis of breast lesions if taken the maximum Youden's index as cut-off. (2)There were significant differences between benign lesions and malignant lesions in rK(trans), rk(ep) and rV(e) (t=14.177, 11.726, 2.477, respectively, P<0.05). The AUC of rK(trans), rk(ep) and rV(e) between malignant and benign lesions were 0.963, 0.903 and 0.575, the sensitivity of rK(trans), rk(ep) and rV(e) were 85.6%, 71.9%, 52.9% , and the specificity of rK(trans), rk(ep) and rV(e) were 94.5%, 92.7%, 60.6% for the differential diagnosis of breast lesions.(3)There was no significant difference in the area under the ROC curve between the predictive probability of quantitative pharmacokinetic parameters and the prediction probability of relative quantitative pharmacokinetic parameters(Z=0.867, P=0.195). Conclusion: There was no significant difference between the quantitative parameter values (K(trans,) k(ep)) and the relative quantitative parameter values (rK(trans,) rk(ep)) in diagnosis of breast lesions, which were important parameters in differential diagnosis of benign and malignant breast lesions.