| Literature DB >> 32478083 |
Apekshya Chhetri1,2, Xin Li1, Joseph V Rispoli1,3,4.
Abstract
Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among women worldwide, and early detection remains a principal factor for improved patient outcomes and reduced mortality. Clinically, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques are routinely used in determining benign and malignant tumor phenotypes and for monitoring treatment outcomes. Static MRI techniques enable superior structural contrast between adipose and fibroglandular tissues, while dynamic MRI techniques can elucidate functional characteristics of malignant tumors. The preferred clinical procedure-dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI-illuminates the hypervascularity of breast tumors through a gadolinium-based contrast agent; however, accumulation of the potentially toxic contrast agent remains a major limitation of the technique, propelling MRI research toward finding an alternative, noninvasive method. Three such techniques are magnetic resonance spectroscopy, chemical exchange saturation transfer, and non-contrast diffusion weighted imaging. These methods shed light on underlying chemical composition, provide snapshots of tissue metabolism, and more pronouncedly characterize microstructural heterogeneity. This review article outlines the present state of clinical MRI for breast cancer and examines several research techniques that demonstrate capacity for clinical translation. Ultimately, multi-parametric MRI-incorporating one or more of these emerging methods-presently holds the best potential to afford improved specificity and deliver excellent accuracy to clinics for the prediction, detection, and monitoring of breast cancer.Entities:
Keywords: MRI; breast cancer; contrast; diffusion; magnetic resonance; spectroscopy
Year: 2020 PMID: 32478083 PMCID: PMC7235971 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2020.00175
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) ISSN: 2296-858X
Figure 1Fat-suppressed T1-weighted MRI of the same subject at (A) 7T and (B) 3T. The water signal uniformity (uw) is similar across 3T and 7T, while the fat-water contrast (c) is markedly improved at 7T. Reprinted with permission from Brown et al. (28); ©2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Figure 2High-resolution 1.5T DCE MRI of four subjects from the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6657 repository (31) (A) unmodified and (B) with the segmented breast fibroglandular tissue overlaid in green.
Figure 3A comparison of diffusion techniques and metrics from scanning a 57-year-old woman with left breast invasive ductal carcinoma (tumor indicated by the arrow) at 3T. (A) The baseline b = 0 image acquired without diffusion gradients; (B) conventional DWI: apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) map (scale bar 0-2.35 mm2/s), arrow indicating tumor ADC value of 1.090 mm2/s; (C) diffusion kurtosis imaging: mean kurtosis map (scale bar 0-3 mm2/s), arrow indicating tumor mean kurtosis value of 1.154 mm2/s; (D) DTI: mean diffusivity map (scale bar 0-2.8 mm2/s), arrow indicating tumor mean diffusivity value of 0.808 mm2/s. Reprinted with permission from Li et al. (43); ©2018 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.
Figure 4Example 7T data of a patient with an ER+, PR+, HER2- tumor. (A) T1-weighted image with indicated voxel selection (blue square), (B) 31P MRS spectrum of nine fitted metabolites. Adapted from Krikken et al. (88), used under CC BY.
Figure 5Amide proton transfer maps overlaying anatomical T1-weighted images acquired at 3T. The top row shows data acquired prior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC); the bottom row shows data acquired after one cycle of NAC. (A) Patient who had complete response (i.e., no residual tumor) and (B) patient who had progressive disease. Reprinted with permission from Chan et al. (95); ©2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Figure 6Comparison of (A) mammogram and (B,C) susceptibility weighted phase images acquired at 7T with a 0.35-mm isotropic resolution -weighted 3D gradient echo sequence (105). Diamagnetic microcalcifications are indicated by yellow arrows and are hypointense in the susceptibility weighted phase images.
Figure 7Example MR fingerprinting of the breast. Representative (A) T1 and (B) T2 MR fingerprinting color maps from one subject. Reprinted with permission from Chen et al. (109); ©2019 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.
Comparison of current and emerging MRI techniques.
| Structural imaging | T1 and T2 weighted bilateral fat suppression imaging | Superior sensitivity for breast tumors; preferable for dense breast imaging | Low tumoral contrast, as tumor is surrounded by breast fat and fibroglandular tissue | ||
| Contrast Enhanced Perfusion MRI | Dynamic Contrast Enhanced (DCE) MRI | Routinely utilized for distinguishing malignant vs benign cancers | Microvasculature and hypersensitivity in malignant tumors | Affected by hormones (menstrual cycle) | |
| Diffusion Weighted MRI (Gaussian) | Diffusion Weighted Imaging (DWI) | Potential tissue cellularity-based approach | Improved lesion detection for voxel-wise calculation ( | Inconsistency in obtaining high-quality breast DWI but can be solved with protocol standardization and QA procedure (see ( | |
| Diffusion Weighted MRI (Non-Gaussian) | Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging | Potential to differentiate heterogenous tumor microstructures ( | Applicable for intracellular structures, e.g., membranes and organelles ( | Low SNR; longer scanning time and higher magnetic gradient strength for high b-value acquisition | |
| Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (MRS) | Proton Spectroscopy | Potential biomarker for malignant breast cancer | Highest sensitivity and simplest data acquisition | Issues related to reproducibility across clinical sites ( | |
| Other techniques | Sodium MRI | Potentially differentiating malignant tumors based on sodium concentration ( | No chemical or spectral shift observed; based on sodium/potassium ion channels in the body | Could be overlapped with other sodium/potassium ion channel related disorder | |