Soo-Yeon Kim1, Jaewook Shin2, Dong-Hyun Kim2, Min Jung Kim3, Eun-Kyung Kim1, Hee Jung Moon1, Jung Hyun Yoon1. 1. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiological Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, 120-752, Seoul, Korea. 2. Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea. 3. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiological Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, 120-752, Seoul, Korea. mines@yuhs.ac.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the correlation between conductivity and prognostic factors of invasive breast cancer using magnetic resonance electric properties tomography (MREPT). METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by the Institutional Review Board, and verbal informed consent was obtained prior to breast MRI. This study included 65 women with surgically confirmed invasive breast cancers measuring 1 cm or larger on T2-weighted fast spin echo (FSE). Phase-based MREPT and the coil combination technique were used to reconstruct conductivity. Simple and multiple linear regression analysis were used to find an independent factor associated with conductivity. RESULTS: In total tumours, tumours with HER-2 overexpression showed lower conductivity than those without, and HER-2 overexpression was independently associated with conductivity. In 37 tumours 2 cm or larger, tumours with high mitosis or PR positivity showed higher conductivity than those without, and high mitosis and PR positivity were independently associated with conductivity. In 28 tumours 1-2 cm in size, there were no differences in conductivity according to the prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: Conductivity values measured using MREPT are associated with the HER-2 overexpression status, and may provide information about mitosis and the PR status of invasive breast cancers 2 cm or larger. KEY POINTS: • In all tumours, HER-2 overexpression was independently associated with conductivity. • In tumours ≥ 2 cm, high mitosis and PR positivity were associated with conductivity. • Conductivity is associated with the HER-2 overexpression status of invasive breast cancers.
PURPOSE: To investigate the correlation between conductivity and prognostic factors of invasive breast cancer using magnetic resonance electric properties tomography (MREPT). METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by the Institutional Review Board, and verbal informed consent was obtained prior to breast MRI. This study included 65 women with surgically confirmed invasive breast cancers measuring 1 cm or larger on T2-weighted fast spin echo (FSE). Phase-based MREPT and the coil combination technique were used to reconstruct conductivity. Simple and multiple linear regression analysis were used to find an independent factor associated with conductivity. RESULTS: In total tumours, tumours with HER-2 overexpression showed lower conductivity than those without, and HER-2 overexpression was independently associated with conductivity. In 37 tumours 2 cm or larger, tumours with high mitosis or PR positivity showed higher conductivity than those without, and high mitosis and PR positivity were independently associated with conductivity. In 28 tumours 1-2 cm in size, there were no differences in conductivity according to the prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: Conductivity values measured using MREPT are associated with the HER-2 overexpression status, and may provide information about mitosis and the PR status of invasive breast cancers 2 cm or larger. KEY POINTS: • In all tumours, HER-2 overexpression was independently associated with conductivity. • In tumours ≥ 2 cm, high mitosis and PR positivity were associated with conductivity. • Conductivity is associated with the HER-2 overexpression status of invasive breast cancers.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Electric conductivity; HER-2; Magnetic resonance imaging; Mitosis
Authors: V Cherepenin; A Karpov; A Korjenevsky; V Kornienko; A Mazaletskaya; D Mazourov; D Meister Journal: Physiol Meas Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 2.833
Authors: A Molino; R Micciolo; M Turazza; F Bonetti; Q Piubello; A Bonetti; R Nortilli; G Pelosi; G L Cetto Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 1997-08-22 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: P L Fitzgibbons; D L Page; D Weaver; A D Thor; D C Allred; G M Clark; S G Ruby; F O'Malley; J F Simpson; J L Connolly; D F Hayes; S B Edge; A Lichter; S J Schnitt Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: E Leonardi; S Girlando; G Serio; F A Mauri; G Perrone; S Scampini; P Dalla Palma; M Barbareschi Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 1992-05 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Joel S Parker; Michael Mullins; Maggie C U Cheang; Samuel Leung; David Voduc; Tammi Vickery; Sherri Davies; Christiane Fauron; Xiaping He; Zhiyuan Hu; John F Quackenbush; Inge J Stijleman; Juan Palazzo; J S Marron; Andrew B Nobel; Elaine Mardis; Torsten O Nielsen; Matthew J Ellis; Charles M Perou; Philip S Bernard Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-02-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Yicun Wang; Qi Shao; Pierre-Francois Van de Moortele; Emilian Racila; Jiaen Liu; John Bischof; Bin He Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-09-19 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Ghoncheh Amouzandeh; Frederic Mentink-Vigier; Shannon Helsper; F Andrew Bagdasarian; Jens T Rosenberg; Samuel C Grant Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2020-02-28 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Stefano Mandija; Ettore F Meliadò; Niek R F Huttinga; Peter R Luijten; Cornelis A T van den Berg Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-06-20 Impact factor: 4.379