OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) parameters could identify invasive components in cases with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) diagnosed by biopsy. METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board and the requirement to obtain informed consent was waived. Sixty-nine consecutive women with 70 lesions diagnosed with DCIS by biopsy underwent breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. Multiple regions of interest were placed (as many as possible) within the lesion on ADC maps. The minimum ADC values and the ADC difference values obtained as the difference between minimum and maximum ADCs were evaluated. RESULTS: Surgical specimens revealed 51 lesions with pure DCIS and the remaining 19 lesions with DCIS with invasive components (DCIS-IC). The minimum ADC value for DCIS-IC (0.99 ± 0.04 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s) was significantly lower than that of pure DCIS (1.15 ± 0.03 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s) (P = 0.0037). The ADC difference value for DCIS-IC (0.38 ± 0.05 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s) was significantly higher than that of pure DCIS (0.17 ± 0.03 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s). ROC curve analysis for differentiating DCIS-IC from pure DCIS revealed that the area under the curve was 0.71 for minimum ADC value and 0.77 for ADC difference value. CONCLUSIONS: The minimum ADC values and ADC difference values could suggest the presence of invasive components. KEY POINTS: • Identification of invasive components in DCIS before treatment is clinically important. • Diffusion-weighted MR imaging can help lesion assessment in breast cancer. • The minimum ADC value may suggest the presence of an invasive component in DCIS. • The ADC difference value also suggests the presence of an invasive component in DCIS. • Preoperative evaluation of diffusion-weighted MR imaging may help surgical planning for DCIS.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) parameters could identify invasive components in cases with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) diagnosed by biopsy. METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board and the requirement to obtain informed consent was waived. Sixty-nine consecutive women with 70 lesions diagnosed with DCIS by biopsy underwent breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. Multiple regions of interest were placed (as many as possible) within the lesion on ADC maps. The minimum ADC values and the ADC difference values obtained as the difference between minimum and maximum ADCs were evaluated. RESULTS: Surgical specimens revealed 51 lesions with pure DCIS and the remaining 19 lesions with DCIS with invasive components (DCIS-IC). The minimum ADC value for DCIS-IC (0.99 ± 0.04 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s) was significantly lower than that of pure DCIS (1.15 ± 0.03 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s) (P = 0.0037). The ADC difference value for DCIS-IC (0.38 ± 0.05 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s) was significantly higher than that of pure DCIS (0.17 ± 0.03 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s). ROC curve analysis for differentiating DCIS-IC from pure DCIS revealed that the area under the curve was 0.71 for minimum ADC value and 0.77 for ADC difference value. CONCLUSIONS: The minimum ADC values and ADC difference values could suggest the presence of invasive components. KEY POINTS: • Identification of invasive components in DCIS before treatment is clinically important. • Diffusion-weighted MR imaging can help lesion assessment in breast cancer. • The minimum ADC value may suggest the presence of an invasive component in DCIS. • The ADC difference value also suggests the presence of an invasive component in DCIS. • Preoperative evaluation of diffusion-weighted MR imaging may help surgical planning for DCIS.
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: 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: 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: Savannah C Partridge; Christiane D Mullins; Brenda F Kurland; Michael D Allain; Wendy B DeMartini; Peter R Eby; Constance D Lehman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 3.959
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: 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: 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: Michael R Harowicz; Ashirbani Saha; Lars J Grimm; P Kelly Marcom; Jeffrey R Marks; E Shelley Hwang; Maciej A Mazurowski Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-02-09 Impact factor: 4.813