PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the relation between cancer cellularity and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value using diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The subjects were 27 women who had undergone operation for breast cancer. There were 27 breast cancer lesions, 24 of which were invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) and 3 of which were noninvasive ductal carcinoma (NIDC). RESULTS: The mean ADC values of IDC, NIDC, and normal breasts were 1.07 +/- 0.19 .10(-3), 1.42 +/- 0.17 .10(-3), and 1.96 +/- 0.21 .10(-3) mm(2)/s, respectively. The mean ADC values of IDC and NIDC were significantly different from that of normal breasts (P < 0.001 each). The mean ADC values were also significantly different between IDC and NIDC (P < 0.001). There was no correlation between the ADC value and cancer cellularity. CONCLUSION: The mean ADC values for breast cancer were significantly different from that of normal breasts. The mean ADC value for breast cancer did not significantly correlate with cancer cellularity but did correlate with histological types.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the relation between cancer cellularity and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value using diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The subjects were 27 women who had undergone operation for breast cancer. There were 27 breast cancer lesions, 24 of which were invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) and 3 of which were noninvasive ductal carcinoma (NIDC). RESULTS: The mean ADC values of IDC, NIDC, and normal breasts were 1.07 +/- 0.19 .10(-3), 1.42 +/- 0.17 .10(-3), and 1.96 +/- 0.21 .10(-3) mm(2)/s, respectively. The mean ADC values of IDC and NIDC were significantly different from that of normal breasts (P < 0.001 each). The mean ADC values were also significantly different between IDC and NIDC (P < 0.001). There was no correlation between the ADC value and cancer cellularity. CONCLUSION: The mean ADC values for breast cancer were significantly different from that of normal breasts. The mean ADC value for breast cancer did not significantly correlate with cancer cellularity but did correlate with histological types.
Authors: T Sugahara; Y Korogi; M Kochi; I Ikushima; Y Shigematu; T Hirai; T Okuda; L Liang; Y Ge; Y Komohara; Y Ushio; M Takahashi Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: K O Lövblad; H J Laubach; A E Baird; F Curtin; G Schlaug; R R Edelman; S Warach Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 1998 Jun-Jul Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Junzhong Xu; Xiaoyu Jiang; Hua Li; Lori R Arlinghaus; Eliot T McKinley; Sean P Devan; Benjamin M Hardy; Jingping Xie; Hakmook Kang; A Bapsi Chakravarthy; John C Gore Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-11-25 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Elizabeth S McDonald; Jennifer G Schopp; Sue Peacock; Wendy B DeMartini; Wendy D DeMartini; Habib Rahbar; Constance D Lehman; Savannah C Partridge Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Brian J Archer; Till Uberruck; Julia J Mack; Khalid Youssef; Nanette N Jarenwattananon; Deniz Rall; Denis Wypysek; Martin Wiese; Bernhard Blumich; Matthias Wessling; M Luisa Iruela-Arispe; Louis-S Bouchard Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2018-07-18 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Sana Parsian; Habib Rahbar; Kimberly H Allison; Wendy B Demartini; Matthew L Olson; Constance D Lehman; Savannah C Partridge Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-10-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Anwar R Padhani; Guoying Liu; Dow Mu Koh; Thomas L Chenevert; Harriet C Thoeny; Taro Takahara; Andrew Dzik-Jurasz; Brian D Ross; Marc Van Cauteren; David Collins; Dima A Hammoud; Gordon J S Rustin; Bachir Taouli; Peter L Choyke Journal: Neoplasia Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 5.715