Literature DB >> 23857151

Correlations between apparent diffusion coefficient values and prognostic factors of breast cancer.

Takeshi Kamitani1, Yoshio Matsuo, Hidetake Yabuuchi, Nobuhiro Fujita, Michinobu Nagao, Mikako Jinnouchi, Masato Yonezawa, Yuzo Yamasaki, Eriko Tokunaga, Makoto Kubo, Hidetaka Yamamoto, Takashi Yoshiura, Hiroshi Honda.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We investigated possible correlations between apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values and prognostic factors of breast cancer.
METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 81 patients who underwent magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of the breast and were diagnosed pathologically with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) not otherwise specified with invasive foci one cm or larger. We excluded ductal carcinoma in situ and IDC with invasive foci smaller than one cm because small lesions decrease the reliability of signal intensity of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). We also excluded special type cancers. We used t-test to compare the mean ADC values of cancers of Stage pT1 (≤2 cm) versus pT2 or 3 (>2 cm), cancers with versus without vascular invasion, axillary lymph node (N)-positive versus N-negative cancers, estrogen receptor (ER)-positive versus ER-negative cancers, and progesterone receptor (PgR)-positive versus PgR-negative cancers. We analyzed correlations between the ADC value with nuclear grade (NG) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) score by rank test using Spearman's correlation coefficient.
RESULTS: The mean ADC value was significantly higher for N-positive (n=28; 0.97 ± 0.20 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s) than N-negative cancers (n=53; 0.87 ± 0.17 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s) (P=0.017); significantly lower for ER-positive (n=63; 0.88 ± 0.15 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s) than ER-negative cancers (n=18; 1.01 ± 0.21 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s) (P=0.005); and significantly lower for PgR-positive (n=47; 0.88 ± 0.16 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s) than PgR-negative cancers (n=34; 0.95 ± 0.18 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s) (P=0.048). Tumor size, vascular invasion, NG, and HER2 status showed no significant correlation with ADC values.
CONCLUSION: ADC values were higher for N-positive and ER-negative breast cancers than N-negative and ER-positive cancers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23857151     DOI: 10.2463/mrms.2012-0095

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Magn Reson Med Sci        ISSN: 1347-3182            Impact factor:   2.471


  25 in total

1.  Diagnostic performance of ADCs in different ROIs for breast lesions.

Authors:  Wei Zhang; Guan-Qiao Jin; Jun-Jie Liu; Dan-Ke Su; Ning-Bin Luo; Dong Xie; Shao-Lv Lai; Xiang-Yang Huang; Wei-Li Huang
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-08-15

2.  Is there any relationship between adc values of diffusion-weighted imaging and the histopathological prognostic factors of invasive ductal carcinoma?

Authors:  Hale Aydin; Bahar Guner; Isil Esen Bostanci; Zarife Melda Bulut; Bilgin Kadri Aribas; Lutfi Dogan; Mehmet Ali Gulcelik
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-01-12       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Diagnostic Value of Diffusion-weighted Imaging and Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Values in the Differentiation of Breast Lesions, Histpathologic Subgroups and Correlatıon with Prognostıc Factors using 3.0 Tesla MR.

Authors:  Yasin Akın; M Ümit Uğurlu; Handan Kaya; Erkin Arıbal
Journal:  J Breast Health       Date:  2016-07-01

4.  Voxelwise analysis of simultaneously acquired and spatially correlated 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET and intravoxel incoherent motion metrics in breast cancer.

Authors:  Jason Ostenson; Akshat C Pujara; Artem Mikheev; Linda Moy; Sungheon G Kim; Amy N Melsaether; Komal Jhaveri; Sylvia Adams; David Faul; Christopher Glielmi; Christian Geppert; Thorsten Feiweier; Kimberly Jackson; Gene Y Cho; Fernando E Boada; Eric E Sigmund
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2016-10-25       Impact factor: 4.668

5.  Diffusion Weighted MR Imaging of Breast and Correlation of Prognostic Factors in Breast Cancer.

Authors:  İnci Kızıldağ Yırgın; Gözde Arslan; Enis Öztürk; Hakan Yırgın; Nihat Taşdemir; Ayşegül Akdoğan Gemici; Fatma Çelik Kabul; Eyüp Kaya
Journal:  Balkan Med J       Date:  2016-05-01       Impact factor: 2.021

6.  Apparent diffusion coefficient value in invasive ductal carcinoma at 3.0 Tesla: is it correlated with prognostic factors?

Authors:  Inanc Guvenc; Sinan Akay; Selami Ince; Ramazan Yildiz; Zafer Kilbas; Fahrettin G Oysul; Mustafa Tasar
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-02-08       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Diffusion-weighted imaging of breast lesions: Region-of-interest placement and different ADC parameters influence apparent diffusion coefficient values.

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

Review 8.  Diffusion-weighted breast MRI: Clinical applications and emerging techniques.

Authors:  Savannah C Partridge; Noam Nissan; Habib Rahbar; Averi E Kitsch; Eric E Sigmund
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2016-09-30       Impact factor: 4.813

9.  Evaluation of breast cancer using intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) histogram analysis: comparison with malignant status, histological subtype, and molecular prognostic factors.

Authors:  Gene Young Cho; Linda Moy; Sungheon G Kim; Steven H Baete; Melanie Moccaldi; James S Babb; Daniel K Sodickson; Eric E Sigmund
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-11-28       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient measurement obtained by 3.0Tesla MRI as a potential noninvasive marker of tumor aggressiveness in breast cancer.

Authors:  Manuela Durando; Lucas Gennaro; Gene Y Cho; Dilip D Giri; Merlin M Gnanasigamani; Sujata Patil; Elizabeth J Sutton; Joseph O Deasy; Elizabeth A Morris; Sunitha B Thakur
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2016-06-28       Impact factor: 3.528

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.