Correlations between Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Values and Prognostic Factors of Breast Cancer

被引:56
|
作者
Kamitani, Takeshi [1 ]
Matsuo, Yoshio [1 ]
Yabuuchi, Hidetake [2 ]
Fujita, Nobuhiro [1 ]
Nagao, Michinobu [3 ]
Jinnouchi, Mikako [1 ]
Yonezawa, Masato [1 ]
Yamasaki, Yuzo [1 ]
Tokunaga, Eriko [4 ]
Kubo, Makoto [5 ]
Yamamoto, Hidetaka [6 ]
Yoshiura, Takashi [1 ]
Honda, Hiroshi [1 ]
机构
[1] Kyushu Univ, Grad Sch Med Sci, Dept Clin Radiol, Higashi Ku, Fukuoka 8128582, Japan
[2] Kyushu Univ, Grad Sch Med Sci, Dept Hlth Sci, Fukuoka 8128582, Japan
[3] Kyushu Univ, Grad Sch Med Sci, Dept Mol Imaging & Diag, Fukuoka 8128582, Japan
[4] Kyushu Univ, Grad Sch Med Sci, Dept Surg & Sci, Fukuoka 8128582, Japan
[5] Kyushu Univ, Grad Sch Med Sci, Dept Surg & Oncol, Fukuoka 8128582, Japan
[6] Kyushu Univ, Grad Sch Med Sci, Dept Anat Pathol, Fukuoka 8128582, Japan
关键词
ADC; breast cancer; prognostic factor; INVASIVE DUCTAL CARCINOMA; LYMPH-NODE METASTASES; FIBROTIC FOCUS; MUCINOUS CARCINOMA; ESTROGEN-RECEPTORS; TUMOR; FEATURES; THERAPY;
D O I
10.2463/mrms.2012-0095
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Purpose: We investigated possible correlations between apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values and prognostic factors of breast cancer. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 81 patients who underwent magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of the breast and were diagnosed pathologically with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) not otherwise specified with invasive foci one cm or larger. We excluded ductal carcinoma in situ and IDC with invasive foci smaller than one cm because small lesions decrease the reliability of signal intensity of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). We also excluded special type cancers. We used t-test to compare the mean ADC values of cancers of Stage pT1 (<= 2 cm) versus pT2 or 3 (>2 cm), cancers with versus without vascular invasion, axillary lymph node (N)-positive versus N-negative cancers, estrogen receptor (ER)positive versus ER-negative cancers, and progesterone receptor (PgR)-positive versus PgR-negative cancers. We analyzed correlations between the ADC value with nuclear grade (NG) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) score by rank test using Spearman's correlation coefficient. Results: The mean ADC value was significantly higher for N-positive (n = 28; 0.97 +/- 0.20 x 10(-3) mm/s) than N-negative cancers (n = 53; 0.87 +/- 0.17 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s) (P=0.017); significantly lower for ER-positive (n = 63; 0.88 +/- 0.15 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s) than ER-negative cancers (n = 18; 1.01 +/- 0.21 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s) (P = 0.005); and significantly lower for PgR-positive (n = 47; 0.88 +/- 0.16 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s) than PgR-negative cancers (n = 34; 0.95 +/- 0.18 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s) (P=0.048). Tumor size, vascular invasion, NG, and HER2 status showed no significant correlation with ADC values. Conclusion: ADC values were higher for N-positive and ER-negative breast cancers than N-negative and ER-positive cancers.
引用
收藏
页码:193 / 199
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Correlation between 3T apparent diffusion coefficient values and grading of invasive breast carcinoma
    Cipolla, Valentina
    Santucci, Domiziana
    Guerrieri, Daniele
    Drudi, Francesco Maria
    Meggiorini, Maria Letizia
    de Felice, Carlo
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2014, 83 (12) : 2144 - 2150
  • [42] CORRELATIONS BETWEEN CLONOGENICITY AND PROGNOSTIC FACTORS IN HUMAN-BREAST CANCER
    SMALLWOOD, JA
    MORGAN, GR
    COOPER, A
    KIRKHAM, N
    WILLIAMS, CJ
    WHITEHOUSE, JMA
    TAYLOR, I
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 1984, 71 (02) : 109 - 111
  • [43] Diffusion-weighted imaging in breast cancer: relationship between apparent diffusion coefficient and tumour aggressiveness
    Costantini, M.
    Belli, P.
    Rinaldi, P.
    Bufi, E.
    Giardina, G.
    Franceschini, G.
    Petrone, G.
    Bonomo, L.
    CLINICAL RADIOLOGY, 2010, 65 (12) : 1005 - 1012
  • [44] The role of apparent diffusion coefficient values in differentiation between adrenal masses
    Cicekci, Mehtap
    Onur, Mehmet Ruhi
    Aydin, Ayse Murat
    Gul, Yeliz
    Ozkan, Yusuf
    Akpolat, Nusret
    Kocakoc, Ercan
    CLINICAL IMAGING, 2014, 38 (02) : 148 - 153
  • [45] Apparent Diffusion Coefficient for Prostate Cancer Imaging: Impact of b Values
    Peng, Yahui
    Jiang, Yulei
    Antic, Tatjana
    Sethi, Ila
    Schmid-Tannwald, Christine
    Eggener, Scott
    Oto, Aytekin
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2014, 202 (03) : W247 - W253
  • [46] Value of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Values in Differentiating Malignant and Benign Breast Lesions
    Bozkurt, Tugba Bostan
    Koc, Gonca
    Sezgin, Gulten
    Altay, Canan
    Gelal, M. Fazil
    Oyar, Orhan
    BALKAN MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2016, 33 (03) : 294 - 300
  • [47] The role of diffusion-weighted imaging and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values for breast tumors
    Park, Mi Jung
    Cha, Eun Suk
    Kang, Bong Joo
    Ihn, Yon Kwon
    Baik, Jun Hyun
    KOREAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2007, 8 (05) : 390 - 396
  • [48] APPARENT DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT AS A PROGNOSTIC BIOMARKER OF UPPER URINARY TRACT CANCER
    Yoshida, Soichiro
    Uchida, Yusuke
    Kobayashi, Shuichiro
    Kobayashiga, Fumitaka
    Tanaka, Hiroshi
    Yokoyama, Minato
    Ishioka, Junichiro
    Matsuoka, Yoh
    Numao, Noboru
    Saito, Kazutaka
    Fujii, Yasuhisa
    Kihara, Kazunori
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2016, 195 (04): : E364 - E365
  • [49] Correlation of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Value With Prognostic Parameters of Lung Cancer
    Razek, Ahmed Abdel Khalek Abdel
    Fathy, Amal
    Gawad, Taha Abdel
    JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY, 2011, 35 (02) : 248 - 252
  • [50] Whole-body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and apparent diffusion coefficient values as prognostic factors in multiple myeloma
    Costachescu, Dan
    Ionita, Ioana
    Borsi, Ema-Cristina
    Potre, Ovidiu
    Potre, Cristina
    Navolan, Dan-Bogdan
    Blidisel, Alexandru
    Ionita, Hortensia
    Erimescu, Adelina
    Pop, Gheorghe Nicusor
    Malita, Daniel Claudiu
    EXPERIMENTAL AND THERAPEUTIC MEDICINE, 2021, 22 (02)