Jin You Kim1,2, Jin Joo Kim3, Ji Won Lee3, Nam Kyung Lee3, Geewon Lee3, Taewoo Kang4, Heesung Park4, Yo Han Son5, Robert Grimm6. 1. Department of Radiology, Pusan National University Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine and Medical Research Institute, 1-10, Ami-Dong, Seo-gu, Busan, 602-739, Republic of Korea. youdosa@naver.com. 2. Medical Research Institute, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan, Republic of Korea. youdosa@naver.com. 3. Department of Radiology, Pusan National University Hospital, Pusan National University School of Medicine and Medical Research Institute, 1-10, Ami-Dong, Seo-gu, Busan, 602-739, Republic of Korea. 4. Busan Cancer Center, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, Republic of Korea. 5. Siemens Healthineers, Seoul, Korea. 6. Siemens Healthineers, MR Application Predevelopment, Erlangen, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the value of the whole-lesion histogram apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) metrics for differentiating low-risk from non-low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). METHODS: The authors identified 93 women with pure DCIS who had undergone preoperative MR imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging from 2013 to 2016. Histogram analysis of pixel-based ADC data of the whole tumour volume was performed by two radiologists using a software tool. The results were compared between low-risk and non-low-risk DCIS. Associations between quantitative ADC metrics and low-risk DCIS were evaluated by receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve and logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: In whole-lesion histogram analysis, mean ADC and 5th, 50th and 95th percentiles of ADC were significantly different between low-risk and non-low-risk DCIS (1.522, 1.207, 1.536 and 1.854 × 10-3 mm2/s versus 1.270, 0.917, 1.261 and 1.657 × 10-3 mm2/s, respectively; p = .004, p = .003, p = .004 and p = .024, respectively). ROC curve analysis for differentiating low-risk DCIS revealed that 5th percentile ADC yielded the largest area under the curve (0.786) among the metrics of whole-lesion histogram, and the optimal cut-off point was 1.078 × 10-3 mm2/s (sensitivity 80%, specificity 75.9%, p = .001). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that a high 5th percentile of ADC (> 1.078× 10-3 mm2/s; odds ratio [OR] = 10.494, p = .016), small tumour size (≤ 2 cm; OR = 12.692, p = .008) and low Ki-67 status (< 14%; OR = 10.879, p = .046) were significantly associated with low-risk DCIS. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment with whole-lesion histogram analysis of the ADC could be helpful for identifying patients with low-risk DCIS. KEY POINTS: • Whole-lesion histogram ADC metrics could be helpful for differentiating low-risk from non-low-risk DCIS. • A high 5th percentile ADC was a significant factor associated with low-risk DCIS. • Risk stratification of DCIS is important for their management.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the value of the whole-lesion histogram apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) metrics for differentiating low-risk from non-low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). METHODS: The authors identified 93 women with pure DCIS who had undergone preoperative MR imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging from 2013 to 2016. Histogram analysis of pixel-based ADC data of the whole tumour volume was performed by two radiologists using a software tool. The results were compared between low-risk and non-low-risk DCIS. Associations between quantitative ADC metrics and low-risk DCIS were evaluated by receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve and logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: In whole-lesion histogram analysis, mean ADC and 5th, 50th and 95th percentiles of ADC were significantly different between low-risk and non-low-risk DCIS (1.522, 1.207, 1.536 and 1.854 × 10-3 mm2/s versus 1.270, 0.917, 1.261 and 1.657 × 10-3 mm2/s, respectively; p = .004, p = .003, p = .004 and p = .024, respectively). ROC curve analysis for differentiating low-risk DCIS revealed that 5th percentile ADC yielded the largest area under the curve (0.786) among the metrics of whole-lesion histogram, and the optimal cut-off point was 1.078 × 10-3 mm2/s (sensitivity 80%, specificity 75.9%, p = .001). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that a high 5th percentile of ADC (> 1.078× 10-3 mm2/s; odds ratio [OR] = 10.494, p = .016), small tumour size (≤ 2 cm; OR = 12.692, p = .008) and low Ki-67 status (< 14%; OR = 10.879, p = .046) were significantly associated with low-risk DCIS. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment with whole-lesion histogram analysis of the ADC could be helpful for identifying patients with low-risk DCIS. KEY POINTS: • Whole-lesion histogram ADC metrics could be helpful for differentiating low-risk from non-low-risk DCIS. • A high 5th percentile ADC was a significant factor associated with low-risk DCIS. • Risk stratification of DCIS is important for their management.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast neoplasm; Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging; Ductal carcinoma in situ; Magnetic resonance imaging; Risk
Authors: Virginia L Ernster; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; William E Barlow; Yingye Zheng; Donald L Weaver; Gary Cutter; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Robert Rosenberg; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Stephen H Taplin; Nicole Urban; Berta M Geller Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2002-10-16 Impact factor: 13.506
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: Sanaz A Jansen; Gillian M Newstead; Hiroyuki Abe; Akiko Shimauchi; Robert A Schmidt; Gregory S Karczmar Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Christopher B Moeder; Jennifer M Giltnane; Malini Harigopal; Annette Molinaro; Andrew Robinson; Karen Gelmon; David Huntsman; Robert L Camp; David L Rimm Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-12-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Athina C Tsili; Loukas G Astrakas; Anna C Goussia; Nikolaos Sofikitis; Maria I Argyropoulou Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-04-29 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jin You Kim; Jin Joo Kim; Lee Hwangbo; Ji Won Lee; Nam Kyung Lee; Kyung Jin Nam; Ki Seok Choo; Taewoo Kang; Heeseung Park; Yohan Son; Robert Grimm Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-08-05 Impact factor: 5.315