OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of mean diffusivity (MD) as a predictive index of the response to chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer. METHODS: Twenty-one women referred to our institution with a diagnosis of locally advanced breast cancer underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies at 1.5 T before beginning and after completing combined neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The examination protocol included an EPI sequence sensitised to diffusion (b-value 1,000 s/mm(2)) and three-dimensional (3D) coronal T1 sequences before and after intravenous contrast medium. Tumours were delineated by using dynamic MR acquisition before and after chemotherapy. The percentage of tumour volume reduction (PVR) and pre-(MD(pre)) and post-therapy (MD(post)) MD values were computed for each lesion. RESULTS: PVR >or= 65% was observed in 17/21 patients (responders). MD(pre) of responders (0.99 +/- 0.27 10(-3) mm(2)/s) was significantly (p = 0.025) lower than MD(pre) of non-responders (1.46 +/- 0.33 10(-3) mm(2)/s). Moreover, in patients as a whole PVR significantly correlated (p = 0.01, r = -0.54) with MD(pre). MD(post) (1.26 +/- 0.39 10(-3) mm(2)/s) of responders was significantly(p = 0.024) higher than MD(pre) (0.99 +/- 0.27 mm(2) 10(-3) mm(2)/s), whereas non-responders MD(post) (1.00 +/- 0.14 10(-3) mm(2)/s)did not increase compared with MD(pre) (1.46 +/- 0.33 10(-3) mm(2)/s). CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study seems to indicate that low values of pre-chemotherapy MD may identify, before starting treatment, the patients with higher probability of response in terms of percentage of volume reduction of the lesion. MD may represent a complementary parameter useful to correctly select patients for neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of mean diffusivity (MD) as a predictive index of the response to chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer. METHODS: Twenty-one women referred to our institution with a diagnosis of locally advanced breast cancer underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies at 1.5 T before beginning and after completing combined neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The examination protocol included an EPI sequence sensitised to diffusion (b-value 1,000 s/mm(2)) and three-dimensional (3D) coronal T1 sequences before and after intravenous contrast medium. Tumours were delineated by using dynamic MR acquisition before and after chemotherapy. The percentage of tumour volume reduction (PVR) and pre-(MD(pre)) and post-therapy (MD(post)) MD values were computed for each lesion. RESULTS: PVR >or= 65% was observed in 17/21 patients (responders). MD(pre) of responders (0.99 +/- 0.27 10(-3) mm(2)/s) was significantly (p = 0.025) lower than MD(pre) of non-responders (1.46 +/- 0.33 10(-3) mm(2)/s). Moreover, in patients as a whole PVR significantly correlated (p = 0.01, r = -0.54) with MD(pre). MD(post) (1.26 +/- 0.39 10(-3) mm(2)/s) of responders was significantly(p = 0.024) higher than MD(pre) (0.99 +/- 0.27 mm(2) 10(-3) mm(2)/s), whereas non-responders MD(post) (1.00 +/- 0.14 10(-3) mm(2)/s)did not increase compared with MD(pre) (1.46 +/- 0.33 10(-3) mm(2)/s). CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study seems to indicate that low values of pre-chemotherapy MD may identify, before starting treatment, the patients with higher probability of response in terms of percentage of volume reduction of the lesion. MD may represent a complementary parameter useful to correctly select patients for neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Authors: Savannah C Partridge; Jessica E Gibbs; Ying Lu; Laura J Esserman; Debasish Tripathy; Dulcy S Wolverton; Hope S Rugo; E Shelley Hwang; Cheryl A Ewing; Nola M Hylton Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Daniel A Hamstra; Thomas L Chenevert; Bradford A Moffat; Timothy D Johnson; Charles R Meyer; Suresh K Mukherji; Douglas J Quint; Stephen S Gebarski; Xiaoying Fan; Christina I Tsien; Theodore S Lawrence; Larry Junck; Alnawaz Rehemtulla; Brian D Ross Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2005-11-02 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Keith N Ogston; Iain D Miller; Simon Payne; Andrew W Hutcheon; Tarun K Sarkar; Ian Smith; A Schofield; Steven D Heys Journal: Breast Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Radhika Rajan; Anna Poniecka; Terry L Smith; Ying Yang; Deborah Frye; Lajos Pusztai; Derek J Fiterman; Eva Gal-Gombos; Gary Whitman; Roman Rouzier; Marjorie Green; Henry Kuerer; Aman U Buzdar; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; W Fraser Symmans Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: D J Manton; A Chaturvedi; A Hubbard; M J Lind; M Lowry; A Maraveyas; M D Pickles; D J Tozer; L W Turnbull Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2006-02-13 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: P Mürtz; M Tsesarskiy; A Kowal; F Träber; J Gieseke; W A Willinek; C C Leutner; A Schmiedel; H H Schild Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-06-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Savannah C Partridge; Lisa Singer; Ryan Sun; Lisa J Wilmes; Catherine S Klifa; Constance D Lehman; Nola M Hylton Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-09-14 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Lisa Singer; Lisa J Wilmes; Emine U Saritas; Ajit Shankaranarayanan; Evelyn Proctor; Dorota J Wisner; Belinda Chang; Bonnie N Joe; Dwight G Nishimura; Nola M Hylton Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2011-12-22 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Hubert Bickel; Katja Pinker; Stephan Polanec; Heinrich Magometschnigg; Georg Wengert; Claudio Spick; Wolfgang Bogner; Zsuzsanna Bago-Horvath; Thomas H Helbich; Pascal Baltzer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: David C Newitt; Zheng Zhang; Jessica E Gibbs; Savannah C Partridge; Thomas L Chenevert; Mark A Rosen; Patrick J Bolan; Helga S Marques; Sheye Aliu; Wen Li; Lisa Cimino; Bonnie N Joe; Heidi Umphrey; Haydee Ojeda-Fournier; Basak Dogan; Karen Oh; Hiroyuki Abe; Jennifer Drukteinis; Laura J Esserman; Nola M Hylton Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Richard G Abramson; Lori R Arlinghaus; Jared A Weis; Xia Li; Adrienne N Dula; Eduard Y Chekmenev; Seth A Smith; Michael I Miga; Vandana G Abramson; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press) Date: 2012-10