Jin You Kim1,2, Jin Joo Kim3, Lee Hwangbo3, Ji Won Lee3, Nam Kyung Lee3, Kyung Jin Nam4, Ki Seok Choo4, Taewoo Kang5, Heeseung Park5, Yohan Son6, Robert Grimm7. 1. Department of Radiology, Medical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, Republic of Korea. youdosa@naver.com. 2. Department of Radiology, Pusan National University School of Medicine, 1-10, Ami-Dong, Seo-gu, Busan, 602-739, Republic of Korea. youdosa@naver.com. 3. Department of Radiology, Medical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, Republic of Korea. 4. Department of Radiology, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Yangsan, Republic of Korea. 5. Busan Cancer Center, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, Republic of Korea. 6. Siemens Healthineers Ltd., Seoul, Republic of Korea. 7. Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate possible associations between quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) metrics derived from whole-lesion histogram analysis and breast cancer recurrence risk in women with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, node-negative breast cancer who underwent the Oncotype DX assay. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted on 105 women (median age, 48 years) with ER-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer who underwent the Oncotype DX test and preoperative diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). Histogram analysis of pixel-based ADC data of whole tumors was performed, and various ADC histogram parameters (mean, 5th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 95th percentiles of ADCs) were extracted. The ADC difference value (defined as the difference between the 5th and 95th percentiles of ADCs) was calculated to assess intratumoral heterogeneity. Associations between quantitative ADC metrics and the recurrence risk, stratified using the Oncotype DX recurrence score (RS), were evaluated. RESULTS: Whole-lesion histogram analysis showed that the ADC difference value was different between the low-risk recurrence (RS < 18) and the non-low-risk recurrence (RS ≥ 18; intermediate to high risk of recurrence) groups (0.600 × 10-3 mm2/s vs. 0.746 × 10-3 mm2/s, p < 0.001). Multivariate regression analysis demonstrated that a lower ADC difference value (< 0.559 × 10-3 mm2/s; odds ratio [OR] = 5.998; p = 0.007) and a small tumor size (≤ 2 cm; OR = 3.866; p = 0.012) were associated with a low risk of recurrence after adjusting for clinicopathological factors. CONCLUSIONS: The ADC difference value derived from whole-lesion histogram analysis might serve as a quantitative DWI biomarker of the recurrence risk in women with ER-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative invasive breast cancer. KEY POINTS: • A lower ADC difference value and a small tumor size were associated with a low risk of recurrence of breast cancer. • The ADC difference value could be a quantitative marker for intratumoral heterogeneity. • Whole-lesion histogram analysis of the ADC could be helpful for discriminating the low-risk from non-low-risk recurrence groups.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate possible associations between quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) metrics derived from whole-lesion histogram analysis and breast cancer recurrence risk in women with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, humanepidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, node-negative breast cancer who underwent the Oncotype DX assay. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted on 105 women (median age, 48 years) with ER-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative breast cancer who underwent the Oncotype DX test and preoperative diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). Histogram analysis of pixel-based ADC data of whole tumors was performed, and various ADC histogram parameters (mean, 5th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 95th percentiles of ADCs) were extracted. The ADC difference value (defined as the difference between the 5th and 95th percentiles of ADCs) was calculated to assess intratumoral heterogeneity. Associations between quantitative ADC metrics and the recurrence risk, stratified using the Oncotype DX recurrence score (RS), were evaluated. RESULTS: Whole-lesion histogram analysis showed that the ADC difference value was different between the low-risk recurrence (RS < 18) and the non-low-risk recurrence (RS ≥ 18; intermediate to high risk of recurrence) groups (0.600 × 10-3 mm2/s vs. 0.746 × 10-3 mm2/s, p < 0.001). Multivariate regression analysis demonstrated that a lower ADC difference value (< 0.559 × 10-3 mm2/s; odds ratio [OR] = 5.998; p = 0.007) and a small tumor size (≤ 2 cm; OR = 3.866; p = 0.012) were associated with a low risk of recurrence after adjusting for clinicopathological factors. CONCLUSIONS: The ADC difference value derived from whole-lesion histogram analysis might serve as a quantitative DWI biomarker of the recurrence risk in women with ER-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative invasive breast cancer. KEY POINTS: • A lower ADC difference value and a small tumor size were associated with a low risk of recurrence of breast cancer. • The ADC difference value could be a quantitative marker for intratumoral heterogeneity. • Whole-lesion histogram analysis of the ADC could be helpful for discriminating the low-risk from non-low-risk recurrence groups.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biomarkers; Breast neoplasms, Oncotype DX; Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging; Recurrence
Authors: Jin You Kim; Hie Bum Seo; Shinyoung Park; Jin Il Moon; Ji Won Lee; Nam Kyung Lee; Seok Won Lee; Young Tae Bae Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2015-08-20 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Soonmyung Paik; Steven Shak; Gong Tang; Chungyeul Kim; Joffre Baker; Maureen Cronin; Frederick L Baehner; Michael G Walker; Drew Watson; Taesung Park; William Hiller; Edwin R Fisher; D Lawrence Wickerham; John Bryant; Norman Wolmark Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-12-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Joseph A Sparano; Robert J Gray; Della F Makower; Kathleen I Pritchard; Kathy S Albain; Daniel F Hayes; Charles E Geyer; Elizabeth C Dees; Edith A Perez; John A Olson; JoAnne Zujewski; Tracy Lively; Sunil S Badve; Thomas J Saphner; Lynne I Wagner; Timothy J Whelan; Matthew J Ellis; Soonmyung Paik; William C Wood; Peter Ravdin; Maccon M Keane; Henry L Gomez Moreno; Pavan S Reddy; Timothy F Goggins; Ingrid A Mayer; Adam M Brufsky; Deborah L Toppmeyer; Virginia G Kaklamani; James N Atkins; Jeffrey L Berenberg; George W Sledge Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-09-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: R Lewin; A Sulkes; T Shochat; D Tsoref; S Rizel; N Liebermann; D Hendler; V Neiman; I Ben-Aharon; E Friedman; S Paluch-Shimon; D Margel; I Kedar; R Yerushalmi Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-05-25 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Michael J Hassett; Samuel M Silver; Melissa E Hughes; Douglas W Blayney; Stephen B Edge; James G Herman; Clifford A Hudis; P Kelly Marcom; Jane E Pettinga; David Share; Richard Theriault; Yu-Ning Wong; Jonathan L Vandergrift; Joyce C Niland; Jane C Weeks Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-05-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Xiaolei Wang; Yuxia Huang; Zhen Yang; Yang Yang; Fenfen Wei; Min Yan; Fanfan Li Journal: Comput Math Methods Med Date: 2022-09-17 Impact factor: 2.809