OBJECTIVE: We evaluated whether the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) provided by diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) varies according to biological features in breast cancer. METHODS: DWI was performed in 190 patients undergoing dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for local staging. For each of the 192 index cancers we studied the correlation between ADC and classical histopathological and immunohistochemical breast tumour features (size, histological type, grade, oestrogen receptor [ER] and Ki-67 expression, HER2 status). ADC was compared with immunohistochemical surrogates of the intrinsic subtypes (Luminal A; Luminal B; HER2-enriched; triple-negative). Correlations were analysed using the Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis H tests. RESULTS: A weak, statistically significant correlation was observed between ADC values and the percentage of ER-positive cells (-0.168, P = 0.020). Median ADC values were significantly higher in ER-negative than in ER-positive tumours (1.110 vs 1.050 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s, P = 0.015). HER2-enriched tumours had the highest median ADC value (1.190 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s, range 0.950-2.090). Multiple comparisons showed that this value was significantly higher than that of Luminal A (1.025 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s [0.700-1.340], P = 0.004) and Luminal B/HER2-negative (1.060 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s [0.470-2.420], P = 0.008) tumours. A trend towards statistical significance (P = 0.018) was seen with Luminal B/HER2-positive tumours. CONCLUSIONS: ADC values vary significantly according to biological tumour features, suggesting that cancer heterogeneity influences imaging parameters. KEY POINTS: DWI may identify biological heterogeneity of breast neoplasms. • ADC values vary significantly according to biological features of breast cancer. • Compared with other types, HER2-enriched tumours show highest median ADC value. • Knowledge of biological heterogeneity of breast neoplasm may improve imaging interpretation.
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated whether the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) provided by diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) varies according to biological features in breast cancer. METHODS: DWI was performed in 190 patients undergoing dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for local staging. For each of the 192 index cancers we studied the correlation between ADC and classical histopathological and immunohistochemical breast tumour features (size, histological type, grade, oestrogen receptor [ER] and Ki-67 expression, HER2 status). ADC was compared with immunohistochemical surrogates of the intrinsic subtypes (Luminal A; Luminal B; HER2-enriched; triple-negative). Correlations were analysed using the Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis H tests. RESULTS: A weak, statistically significant correlation was observed between ADC values and the percentage of ER-positive cells (-0.168, P = 0.020). Median ADC values were significantly higher in ER-negative than in ER-positive tumours (1.110 vs 1.050 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s, P = 0.015). HER2-enriched tumours had the highest median ADC value (1.190 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s, range 0.950-2.090). Multiple comparisons showed that this value was significantly higher than that of Luminal A (1.025 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s [0.700-1.340], P = 0.004) and Luminal B/HER2-negative (1.060 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s [0.470-2.420], P = 0.008) tumours. A trend towards statistical significance (P = 0.018) was seen with Luminal B/HER2-positive tumours. CONCLUSIONS: ADC values vary significantly according to biological tumour features, suggesting that cancer heterogeneity influences imaging parameters. KEY POINTS: DWI may identify biological heterogeneity of breast neoplasms. • ADC values vary significantly according to biological features of breast cancer. • Compared with other types, HER2-enriched tumours show highest median ADC value. • Knowledge of biological heterogeneity of breast neoplasm may improve imaging interpretation.
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: Pascal A T Baltzer; Matthias Benndorf; Matthias Dietzel; Mieczyslaw Gajda; Oumar Camara; Werner A Kaiser Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-11-20 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Claudette E Loo; Marieke E Straver; Sjoerd Rodenhuis; Sara H Muller; Jelle Wesseling; Marie-Jeanne T F D Vrancken Peeters; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-01-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: C S Schouten; P de Graaf; E Bloemena; B I Witte; B J M Braakhuis; R H Brakenhoff; C R Leemans; J A Castelijns; R de Bree Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-02-26 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Deniz Çebi Olgun; Bora Korkmazer; Fahrettin Kılıç; Atilla Süleyman Dikici; Mehmet Velidedeoğlu; Fatih Aydoğan; Fatih Kantarcı; Mehmet Halit Yılmaz Journal: Diagn Interv Radiol Date: 2014 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.630
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