Mirjan Nadrljanski1, Ružica Maksimović2, Vesna Plešinac-Karapandžić3, Marina Nikitović3, Biljana Marković-Vasiljković2, Zorica Milošević3. 1. Clinic for Radiology and Radiation Oncology, Institute of Oncology and Radiology of Serbia, Pasterova 14, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia. Electronic address: dr.m.nadrljanski@gmail.com. 2. Center for Radiology and Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Clinical Center of Serbia, Pasterova 2, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia; Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Dr Subotića 8, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia. 3. Clinic for Radiology and Radiation Oncology, Institute of Oncology and Radiology of Serbia, Pasterova 14, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia; Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Dr Subotića 8, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to contribute to the standardization of the numeric positive enhancement integral (PEI) values in breast parenchyma, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) and to evaluate the significance of the difference in PEI values between IDC and parenchyma, DCIS and parenchyma and IDC and DCIS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the prospective trial, we analyzed the dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) of 60 consecutive patients with histologically confirmed unilateral DCIS (n=30) and IDC (n=30) and defined the PEI values (range; mean ± SD) for the lesions and the breast parenchyma. Tumor-to-non-tumor (T/NT) ratios were calculated for DCIS and IDC and compared. PEI color maps (PEICM) were created. The differences in PEI values between IDC and parenchyma and between DCIS and parenchyma were tested according to t-test. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the differences between the mean PEI values of parenchyma, DCIS and IDC. RESULTS: IDC showed highly statistically different PEI numeric values compared to breast parenchyma (748.7 ± 32.2 vs. 74.6 ± 17.0; p<0.0001). The same applied to the differences in the group of patients with DCIS (428.0 ± 25.0 vs. 66.0 ± 10.6; p<0.0001). The difference between IDC, DCIS and parenchyma were also considered highly statistically significant (p<0.0001) and so were the T/NT ratios for IDC and DCIS (10.1 ± 2.4 vs. 6.6 ± 1.4; p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: PEI numeric values may contribute to differentiation between invasive and in situ breast carcinoma.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to contribute to the standardization of the numeric positive enhancement integral (PEI) values in breast parenchyma, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) and to evaluate the significance of the difference in PEI values between IDC and parenchyma, DCIS and parenchyma and IDC and DCIS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the prospective trial, we analyzed the dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) of 60 consecutive patients with histologically confirmed unilateral DCIS (n=30) and IDC (n=30) and defined the PEI values (range; mean ± SD) for the lesions and the breast parenchyma. Tumor-to-non-tumor (T/NT) ratios were calculated for DCIS and IDC and compared. PEI color maps (PEICM) were created. The differences in PEI values between IDC and parenchyma and between DCIS and parenchyma were tested according to t-test. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the differences between the mean PEI values of parenchyma, DCIS and IDC. RESULTS: IDC showed highly statistically different PEI numeric values compared to breast parenchyma (748.7 ± 32.2 vs. 74.6 ± 17.0; p<0.0001). The same applied to the differences in the group of patients with DCIS (428.0 ± 25.0 vs. 66.0 ± 10.6; p<0.0001). The difference between IDC, DCIS and parenchyma were also considered highly statistically significant (p<0.0001) and so were the T/NT ratios for IDC and DCIS (10.1 ± 2.4 vs. 6.6 ± 1.4; p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: PEI numeric values may contribute to differentiation between invasive and in situ breast carcinoma.
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
Authors: Kwan Ho Lee; Jeong Woo Han; Eun Young Kim; Ji Sup Yun; Yong Lai Park; Chan Heun Park Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2019-12-10 Impact factor: 4.430