PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Radiol Imaging 2020; 30(01): 13-19
DOI: 10.4103/ijri.IJRI_97_19
Oncoimaging

Diffusion weighted imaging in breast cancer – Can it be a noninvasive predictor of nuclear grade?

R Rupa
Division of Breast Imaging, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Kovai Medical Center and Hospital, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
,
R Thushara
Division of Breast Imaging, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Kovai Medical Center and Hospital, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
,
S Swathigha
Division of Breast Imaging, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Kovai Medical Center and Hospital, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
,
R Athira
Division of Breast Imaging, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Kovai Medical Center and Hospital, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
,
N Meena
Division of Breast Imaging, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Kovai Medical Center and Hospital, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
,
Mathew P Cherian
Division of Breast Imaging, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Kovai Medical Center and Hospital, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
› Institutsangaben Financial support and sponsorship Nil.
› Weitere Informationen
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background: DWI and ADC values are noninvasive MRI techniques, which provide quantitative information about tumor heterogeneity. Aim: To determine the minimum and mean ADC values in breast carcinoma and to correlate ADC values with various prognostic factors. Settings and Design: Prospective observational study. Materials and Methods: Fifty-five patients with biopsy-proven breast carcinoma were included in this study. MRI with DWI was performed with Siemens 3T Skyra scanner. ADC values were measured by placing regions of interest (ROIs) within the targeted lesions on ADC maps manually. The histopathological and immunohistochemical analysis of surgical specimen was done to determine the prognostic factors. Statistical Analysis: Students T test and ANOVA were used to study the difference in ADC between two groups. Pearson correlation coefficient was used to quantify the correlation between ADC values and prognostic factors. Results: Lower grade (grade I) breast carcinoma had a significantly high ADC value as compared to higher grade carcinoma (grade II and III). For differentiating Grade I tumors from grade II and III, a minimum ADC cut-off value was 0.79 × 10−3 mm2/sec (83% sensitivity and 84% specificity) and a mean ADC cut-off value was 0.82 × 10-3 mm2/sec (83% sensitivity and 71% specificity) was derived. There was no significant correlation between ADC and other prognostic factors. Conclusion: ADC values can be used to differentiate lower grade breast carcinoma (grade I) from higher grades (grade II and III). Minimum ADC values are more accurate in predicting the grade of the breast tumor than mean ADC value.

Keywords

Breast cancer - diffusion - imaging - predictor - prognosis


Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 05. März 2019

Angenommen: 30. Oktober 2019

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
19. Juli 2021

© 2020. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Breast cancer statistics. World Cancer Research Fund International [Internet]. Available from: http://www.wcrf.org/int/cancer-facts-figures/data-specific-cancers/breast-cancer-statistics. [Last cited on 2017 May 10]
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Gupta A, Shridhar K, Dhillon PK. A review of breast cancer awareness among women in India: Cancer literate or awareness deficit?. Eur J Cancer 2015; 51: 2058-66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Malvia S, Bagadi SA, Dubey US, Saxena S. Epidemiology of breast cancer in Indian women: Breast cancer epidemiology. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol [Internet] 2017 Feb; Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/ajco.12661. [Last cited on 2017 Jun 03]
  • 4 Breast Cancer Facts & Figures. American Cancer Society [Internet]. Available from: https://www.cancer.org/research/cancer-facts-statistics/breast-cancer-facts-figures.html. [Last cited on 2017 May 09]
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Wolff AC, Hammond MEH, Schwartz JN, Hagerty KL, Allred DC, Cote RJ. et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006; 25: 118-45
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Wolff AC, Hammond MEH, Hicks DG, Dowsett M, McShane LM, Allison KH. et al. Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31: 3997-4013
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Pleşan DM, Georgescu M, Georgescu CV, Patrana N, Nina T, Pleşan C. Immunohistochemical evaluation of hormone receptors with predictive value in mammary carcinomas. Rom J Morphol Embryol 2011; 52: 1331-6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Woo CS, Silberman H, Nakamura SK, Ye W, Sposto R, Colburn W. et al. Lymph node status combined with lymphovascular invasion creates a more powerful tool for predicting outcome in patients with invasive breast cancer. Am J Surg 184: 337-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Liebig C, Ayala G, Wilks JA, Berger DH, Albo D. Perineural invasion in cancer: A review of the literature. Cancer 2009; 115: 3379-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Bostan Bozkurt T, Koc G, Sezgin G, Altay C, Gelal MF, Oyar O. Value of apparent diffusion coefficient values in differentiating malignant and benign breast lesions. Balk Med J 2016; 33: 294-300
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, Harms S, Leach MO, Lehman CD. et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 2007; 57: 75-89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Gupta VK, Liu W, Wang R, Ye Y, Jiang J. Differentiation between benign and malignant breast lesions using adc on diffusion-weighted imaging at 3.0 T. Open J Radiol 2016; 06: 1-9
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kul S, Cansu A, Alhan E, Dinc H, Gunes G, Reis A. Contribution of diffusion-weighted imaging to dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in the characterization of breast tumors. Am J Roentgenol 2011; 196: 210-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Menezes GL. Magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer: A literature review and future perspectives. World J Clin Oncol 2014; 5: 61-70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Bogner W, Gruber S, Pinker K, Grabner G, Stadlbauer A, Weber M. et al. Diffusion-weighted MR for differentiation of breast lesions at 3.0 T: How does selection of diffusion protocols affect diagnosis?. Radiology 2009; 253: 341-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Min Q, Shao K, Zhai L, Liu W, Zhu C, Yuan L. et al. Differential diagnosis of benign and malignant breast masses using diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. World J Surg Oncol 2015; 13: 32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Abdulghaffar W, Tag-Aldeen MM. Role of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in differentiating between benign and malignant breast lesions. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 2013; 44: 945-51
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Partridge SC, Mullins CD, Kurland BF, Allain MD, DeMartini WB, Eby PR. et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient values for discriminating benign and malignant breast MRI lesions: Effects of lesion type and size. Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194: 1664-73
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Partridge SC, McDonald ES. Diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging of the breast. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2013; 21: 601-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Costantini M, Belli P, Rinaldi P, Bufi E, Giardina G, Franceschini G. et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging in breast cancer: Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficient and tumour aggressiveness. Clin Radiol 2010; 65: 1005-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Hirano M, Satake H, Ishigaki S, Ikeda M, Kawai H, Naganawa S. Diffusion-Weighted imaging of breast masses: Comparison of diagnostic performance using various apparent diffusion coefficient parameters. Am J Roentgenol 2012; 198: 717-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Guvenc I, Akay S, Ince S, Yildiz R, Kilbas Z, Oysul FG. et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient value in invasive ductal carcinoma at 3.0 Tesla: Is it correlated with prognostic factors?. Br J Radiol 2016; 89: 20150614
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Kizildag Yirgin I, Arslan G, Ozturk E, Yirgin H, Tasdemir N, Akdogan Gemici A. et al. Diffusion weighted mr imaging of breast and correlation of prognostic factors in breast cancer. Balk Med J 2016; 33: 301-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Razek AAKA, Gaballa G, Denewer A, Nada N. Invasive ductal carcinoma: Correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient value with pathological prognostic factors. NMR Biomed 2010; 23: 619-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Park EK, Cho KR, Seo BK, Woo OH, Cho SB, Bae JW. Additional Value of diffusion-weighted imaging to evaluate prognostic factors of breast cancer: Correlation with the apparent diffusion coefficient. Iran J Radiol [Internet] 2016 Jan 16;13. Available from: http://www. Iranjradiol.com/?page=article and article_id=33133. [Last cited on 2017 Jun 13]
  • 26 Martincich L, Deantoni V, Bertotto I, Redana S, Kubatzki F, Sarotto I. et al. Correlations between diffusion-weighted imaging and breast cancer biomarkers. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 1519-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Choi SY, Chang Y-W, Park HJ, Kim HJ, Hong SS, Seo DY. Correlation of the apparent diffusion coefficiency values on diffusion-weighted imaging with prognostic factors for breast cancer. Br J Radiol 2012; 85: e474-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Donegan WL. Tumor-related prognostic factors for breast cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 1997; 47: 28-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK174467/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK174467.pdf. [Last cited on 2017 May 10]
  • 30 Akin Y, Ugurlu MU, Kaya H, Aribal E. Diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted imaging and apparent diffusion coefficient values in the differentiation of breast lesions, histpathologic subgroups and correlation with prognostic factors using 3.0 Tesla MR. J Breast Health 2016; 12: 123-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Kim SH, Cha ES, Kim HS, Kang BJ, Choi JJ, Jung JH. et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of breast cancer: Correlation of the apparent diffusion coefficient value with prognostic factors. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009; 30: 615-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar