RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this work was to compare a high-resolution diffusion-weighted imaging (HR-DWI) acquisition (voxel size = 4.8 mm(3)) to a standard diffusion-weighted imaging (STD-DWI) acquisition (voxel size = 29.3 mm(3)) for monitoring neoadjuvant therapy-induced changes in breast tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine women with locally advanced breast cancer were imaged with both HR-DWI and STD-DWI before and after 3 weeks (early treatment) of neoadjuvant taxane-based treatment. Tumor apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) metrics (mean and histogram percentiles) from both DWI methods were calculated, and their relationship to tumor volume change after 12 weeks of treatment (posttreatment) measured by dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging was evaluated with a Spearman's rank correlation. RESULTS: The HR-DWI pretreatment 15th percentile tumor ADC (P = .03) and early treatment 15th, 25th, and 50th percentile tumor ADCs (P = .008, .010, .04, respectively) were significantly lower than the corresponding STD-DWI percentile ADCs. The mean tumor HR-ADC was significantly lower than STD-ADC at the early treatment time point (P = .02), but not at the pretreatment time point (P = .07). A significant early treatment increase in tumor ADC was found with both methods (P < .05). Correlations between HR-DWI tumor ADC and posttreatment tumor volume change were higher than the STD-DWI correlations at both time points and the lower percentile ADCs had the strongest correlations. CONCLUSION: These initial results suggest that the HR-DWI technique has potential for improving characterization of low tumor ADC values over STD-DWI and that HR-DWI may be of value in evaluating tumor change with treatment.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this work was to compare a high-resolution diffusion-weighted imaging (HR-DWI) acquisition (voxel size = 4.8 mm(3)) to a standard diffusion-weighted imaging (STD-DWI) acquisition (voxel size = 29.3 mm(3)) for monitoring neoadjuvant therapy-induced changes in breast tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine women with locally advanced breast cancer were imaged with both HR-DWI and STD-DWI before and after 3 weeks (early treatment) of neoadjuvant taxane-based treatment. Tumor apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) metrics (mean and histogram percentiles) from both DWI methods were calculated, and their relationship to tumor volume change after 12 weeks of treatment (posttreatment) measured by dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging was evaluated with a Spearman's rank correlation. RESULTS: The HR-DWI pretreatment 15th percentile tumor ADC (P = .03) and early treatment 15th, 25th, and 50th percentile tumor ADCs (P = .008, .010, .04, respectively) were significantly lower than the corresponding STD-DWI percentile ADCs. The mean tumor HR-ADC was significantly lower than STD-ADC at the early treatment time point (P = .02), but not at the pretreatment time point (P = .07). A significant early treatment increase in tumor ADC was found with both methods (P < .05). Correlations between HR-DWI tumor ADC and posttreatment tumor volume change were higher than the STD-DWI correlations at both time points and the lower percentile ADCs had the strongest correlations. CONCLUSION: These initial results suggest that the HR-DWI technique has potential for improving characterization of low tumor ADC values over STD-DWI and that HR-DWI may be of value in evaluating tumor change with treatment.
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: Thomas E Yankeelov; Martin Lepage; Anuradha Chakravarthy; Elizabeth E Broome; Kenneth J Niermann; Mark C Kelley; Ingrid Meszoely; Ingrid A Mayer; Cheryl R Herman; Kevin McManus; Ronald R Price; John C Gore Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2006-11-21 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Srinivasa R Prasad; Kartik S Jhaveri; Sanjay Saini; Peter F Hahn; Elkan F Halpern; James E Sumner Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Savannah C Partridge; Jessica E Gibbs; Ying Lu; Laura J Esserman; Dan Sudilovsky; Nola M Hylton Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: G Bonadonna; P Valagussa; C Brambilla; L Ferrari; A Moliterni; M Terenziani; M Zambetti Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1998-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Claudia A M Wheeler-Kingshott; Simon J Hickman; Geoffrey J M Parker; Olga Ciccarelli; Mark R Symms; David H Miller; Gareth J Barker Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 6.556
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: S Gruber; L Minarikova; K Pinker; O Zaric; M Chmelik; B Strasser; P Baltzer; T Helbich; S Trattnig; W Bogner Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-08-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Maarten W Barentsz; Valentina Taviani; Jung M Chang; Debra M Ikeda; Kanae K Miyake; Suchandrima Banerjee; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Brian A Hargreaves; Bruce L Daniel Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-04-24 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Jessica A McKay; An L Church; Nathan Rubin; Tim H Emory; Noelle F Hoven; Jessica E Kuehn-Hajder; Michael T Nelson; Sudhir Ramanna; Edward J Auerbach; Steen Moeller; Patrick J Bolan Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-08-25 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nara P Pereira; Carla Curi; Cynthia A B T Osório; Elvira F Marques; Fabiana B Makdissi; Katja Pinker; Almir G V Bitencourt Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-11-08 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Ella F Jones; Deep K Hathi; Rita Freimanis; Rita A Mukhtar; A Jo Chien; Laura J Esserman; Laura J Van't Veer; Bonnie N Joe; Nola M Hylton Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 6.575