OBJECTIVES: To characterize ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and its subtypes on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 74 pure DCIS lesions in 69 women who underwent DWI at 1.5 T (b = 0 and 600 s/mm(2)). Each lesion was characterized by qualitative DWI intensity, quantitative DWI lesion-to-normal contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC). The detection rate was calculated with predetermined thresholds for each parameter. The effects of lesion size, grade, morphology, and necrosis were assessed. RESULTS: Ninety-six percent (71/74) of DCIS lesions demonstrated greater qualitative DWI intensity than normal breast tissue. Quantitatively, DCIS lesions demonstrated on average 56% greater signal than normal tissue (mean CNR = 1.83 ± 2.7) and lower ADC values (1.50 ± 0.28 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s) than normal tissue (2.01 ± 0.37 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s, p < 0.0001). A 91% detection rate was achieved utilizing an ADC threshold (<1.81 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s ). Non-high-grade DCIS exhibited greater qualitative DWI intensity (p = 0.02) and quantitative CNR (p = 0.01) than high-grade DCIS but no difference in ADC (p = 0.40). Lesion size, morphology, and necrosis did not affect qualitative or quantitative DWI parameters of DCIS lesions (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: DCIS lesions have higher DWI signal intensity and lower ADC values than normal breast tissue. DWI warrants further investigation as a potential non-contrast MRI tool for early breast cancer detection.
OBJECTIVES: To characterize ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and its subtypes on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 74 pure DCIS lesions in 69 women who underwent DWI at 1.5 T (b = 0 and 600 s/mm(2)). Each lesion was characterized by qualitative DWI intensity, quantitative DWI lesion-to-normal contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC). The detection rate was calculated with predetermined thresholds for each parameter. The effects of lesion size, grade, morphology, and necrosis were assessed. RESULTS: Ninety-six percent (71/74) of DCIS lesions demonstrated greater qualitative DWI intensity than normal breast tissue. Quantitatively, DCIS lesions demonstrated on average 56% greater signal than normal tissue (mean CNR = 1.83 ± 2.7) and lower ADC values (1.50 ± 0.28 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s) than normal tissue (2.01 ± 0.37 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s, p < 0.0001). A 91% detection rate was achieved utilizing an ADC threshold (<1.81 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s ). Non-high-grade DCIS exhibited greater qualitative DWI intensity (p = 0.02) and quantitative CNR (p = 0.01) than high-grade DCIS but no difference in ADC (p = 0.40). Lesion size, morphology, and necrosis did not affect qualitative or quantitative DWI parameters of DCIS lesions (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: DCIS lesions have higher DWI signal intensity and lower ADC values than normal breast tissue. DWI warrants further investigation as a potential non-contrast MRI tool for early breast cancer detection.
Authors: Wolfgang Bogner; Stephan Gruber; Katja Pinker; Günther Grabner; Andreas Stadlbauer; Michael Weber; Ewald Moser; Thomas H Helbich; Siegfried Trattnig Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-07-31 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Savannah C Partridge; Wendy B DeMartini; Brenda F Kurland; Peter R Eby; Steven W White; Constance D Lehman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Jennifer H Menell; Elizabeth A Morris; D David Dershaw; Andrea F Abramson; Edi Brogi; Laura Liberman Journal: Breast J Date: 2005 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Eric L Rosen; Stacy A Smith-Foley; Wendy B DeMartini; Peter R Eby; Sue Peacock; Constance D Lehman Journal: Breast J Date: 2007 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Sanaz A Jansen; Tatjana Paunesku; Xiaobing Fan; Gayle E Woloschak; Stefan Vogt; Suzanne D Conzen; Thomas Krausz; Gillian M Newstead; Gregory S Karczmar Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Eline E Deurloo; Jincey D Sriram; Hendrik J Teertstra; Claudette E Loo; Jelle Wesseling; Emiel J Th Rutgers; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-02-26 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jin You Kim; Jin Joo Kim; Ji Won Lee; Nam Kyung Lee; Geewon Lee; Taewoo Kang; Heesung Park; Yo Han Son; Robert Grimm Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-08-02 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Habib Rahbar; Brenda F Kurland; Matthew L Olson; Averi E Kitsch; John R Scheel; Xiaoyu Chai; Joshua Usoro; Constance D Lehman; Savannah C Partridge Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2016 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Paolo Belli; Melania Costantini; Enida Bufi; Giuseppe Giovanni Giardina; Pierluigi Rinaldi; Gianluca Franceschini; Lorenzo Bonomo Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2014-08-06 Impact factor: 3.469