Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer characterisation: correlations between the apparent diffusion coefficient and major prognostic factors

  • BREAST RADIOLOGY
  • Published:
La radiologia medica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study was done to investigate the correlation between the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and prognostic factors of breast cancer.

Materials and methods

From January 2008 to June 2011, all consecutive patients with breast cancer who underwent breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and subsequent surgery in our hospital were enrolled in our study. The MRI protocol included a diffusion-weighted imaging sequence with b values of 0 and 1,000 s/mm2. For each target lesion in the breast, the ADC value was compared with regard to major prognostic factors: histology, tumour grade, tumour size, lymph node status, and age.

Results

A total of 289 patients with a mean age of 53.49 years were included in the study. The mean ADC value of malignant lesions was 1.02 × 10−3 mm2/s. In situ carcinomas, grade 1 lesions, and tumours without lymph nodal involvement had mean ADC values that were significantly higher than those of invasive carcinomas (p = 0.009), grade 2/3 lesions (p < 0.001), and tumours with nodal metastases (p = 0.001). No significant differences were observed in ADC values among tumours of different sizes or among patient age groups.

Conclusions

ADC values appear to correlate with tumour grade and some major prognostic factors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Raka EA, Ellis IO (2011) Modern classification of breast cancer: should we stick with morphology or convert to molecular profile characteristics. Adv Anat Pathol 18:255–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Rakha EA, Reis-Filho JS, Baehner F et al (2010) Breast cancer prognostic classification in the molecular era: the role of histological grade. Breast Cancer Res 12:207

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bone B, Aspelin P, Bronge L, Veress B (1998) Contrast-enhanced MR imaging as a prognostic indicator of breast cancer. Acta Radiol 39:279–284

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jinguji J, Kajiya Y, Kamimura K et al (2006) Rim enhancement of breast cancers on contrast-enhanced MR imaging: relationship with prognostic factors. Breast Cancer 13:64–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mussurakis S, Buckley DL, Horsman A (1997) Dynamic MR imaging of invasive breast cancer: correlation with tumour grade and other histological factors. Br J Radiol 70:446–451

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Szabo BK, Aspelin P, Kristoffersen Wiberg M et al (2003) Invasive breast cancer: correlation of dynamic MR features with prognostic factors. Eur Radiol 13:2425–2435

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Partridge SC, DeMartini WB, Kurland BF et al (2009) Quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging as an adjunct to conventional breast MRI for improved positive predictive value. AJR 193:1716–1722

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Peters NHGM, Vincken KL, Van Den Bosch MAAJ et al (2010) Quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging for differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: the influence of the choice of b-values. J Magn Reson Imaging 31:1100–1105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rahbar H, Partridge SC, Eby PR et al (2011) Characterization of ductal carcinoma in situ on diffusion weighted breast MRI. Eur Radiol 21:2011–2019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kim SH, Cha ES, Kim HS et al (2009) Diffusion-weighted imaging of breast cancer: correlation of the apparent diffusion coefficient value with prognostic factors. J Magn Reson Imaging 30:615–620

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Costantini M, Belli P, Rinaldi P et al (2010) Diffusion-weighted imaging in breast cancer: relationship between apparent diffusion coefficient and tumor aggressiveness. Clin Radiol 65:1005–1012

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Martincich L, Deantoni V, Bertotto I et al (2012) Correlations between diffusion-weighted imaging and breast cancer biomarkers. Eur Radiol 22:1519–1528

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Choi SY, Chang YW, Park HJ et al (2012) Correlation of the apparent diffusion coefficiency values on diffusion-weighted imaging with prognostic factors for breast cancer. Br J Radiol 85:474–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Choi BB, Kim SH, Kang BJ et al (2012) Diffusion-weighted imaging and FDG PET/CT: predicting the prognoses with apparent diffusion coefficient values and maximum standardized uptake values in patients with invasive ductal carcinoma. World J Surg Oncol 10:126

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nakajo M, Kajiya Y, Kaneko T et al (2010) FDG PET/CT and diffusion-weighted imaging for breast cancer: prognostic value of maximum standardized uptake values and apparent diffusion coefficient values of the primary lesion. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37:2011–2020

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Razek AA, Gaballa G, Denewer A, Nada N (2010) Invasive ductal carcinoma: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient value with pathological prognostic factors. NMR Biomed 23:619–623

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Colagrande S, Carbone SF, Carusi LM et al (2006) Magnetic resonance diffusion-weighted imaging: extraneurological applications. Radiol Med 111:392–419

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kuroki Y, Nasu K (2008) Advances in breast MRI: diffusion-weighted imaging of the breast. Breast Cancer 15:212–217

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kul S, Cansu A, Alhan E et al (2011) Contribution of diffusion-weighted imaging to dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in the characterization of breast tumors. AJR 196:210–217

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Elston CW, Ellis IO (1991) Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 19:403–410

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. McGuire WL (1991) Breast cancer prognostic factors: evaluation guidelines. J Natl Cancer Inst 83:154–155

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rakha EM, El-Sayed ME, Lee AHS et al (2008) Prognostic significance of Nottingham Histologic Grade in invasive breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 26:3153–3158

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Adedayo A, Onitilo MD, Engel JM et al (2009) Breast cancer subtypes based on ER/PR and Her2 expression: comparison of clinicopathologic features and survival. Clin Med Res 7:4–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Cianfrocca M, Gradishar W (2009) New molecular classifications of breast cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 59:303–313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Desmedt C, Haibe-Kains B, Wirapati P et al (2008) Biological processes associated with breast cancer clinical outcome depend on the molecular subtypes. Clin Cancer Res 14:123–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fernandes RCM, Bevilacqua JLB, Soares IC et al (2009) Coordinated expression of ER, PR and HER2 define different prognostic subtypes among poorly differentiated breast carcinomas. Histopathology 55:346–352

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Habibi G, Leung S, Law JH et al (2008) Redefining prognostic factors for breast cancer: yB-1 is a stronger predictor of relapse and disease-specific survival than estrogen receptor or HER-2 across all tumor subtypes. Breast Cancer Res 10:R86

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Weigelt B, Horlings HM, Kreike B et al (2008) Refinement of breast cancer classification by molecular characterization of histological special types. J Pathol 21:141–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Belli P, Costantini M, Ierardi C et al (2011) Diffusion-weighted imaging in evaluating the response to neoadjuvant breast cancer treatment. Breast J 17:610–619

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. National Research Ethics Service (2008) Approval for medical devices research: guidance for researchers, manufacturers, research ethics, committees and NHRR&D offices (Version 2). National Patients Safety Agency, London

    Google Scholar 

  31. Cheng L, Bai Y, Zhang J et al (2013) Optimization of apparent diffusion coefficient measured by diffusion-weighted MRI for diagnosis of breast lesions presenting as mass and non-mass-like enhancement. Tumor Biol 34:1537–1545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Parsian S, Rahbar H, Allison KH et al (2012) Nonmalignant breast lesions: aDCs of benign and high-risk subtypes assessed as false-positive at dynamic enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 265:696–706

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Tavassoli FA, Devilee P (2003) World Health Organization Classification of Tumors. Pathology and Genetics of Tumors of the Breast and Female Genital Organs. IARC Press, Lyon

    Google Scholar 

  34. Elston CW (2005) Classification and grading of invasive breast carcinoma. Verh Dtsch Ges Pathol 89:35–44

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Cirri P, Chiarugi P (2011) Cancer associated fibroblasts: the dark side of the coin. Am J Cancer Res 1:482

    PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Bertos NR, Park M (2011) Breast cancer-one term, many entities? J Clin Invest 121:3789

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Day NE et al (1992) Breast cancer treatment and natural history: new insights from results of screening. Lancet 339:412–414

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Bertrand KA, Tamimi RM, Jensen MR et al (2013) Mammograohic density and risk of breast cancer by age and tumor characteristics. Breast Cancer Res 15:R104

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Dunnwald LK, Rossing MA, Li CI (2007) Hormone receptor status, tumor characteristics, and prognosis: a prospective color of breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res 9:R6

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

All authors Paolo Belli, Melania Costantini, Enida Bufi, Giuseppe Giovanni Giardina, Pierluigi Rinaldi, Gianluca Franceschini, and Lorenzo Bonomo declare that they have not conflict of interest.

Ethical statement

IRB approval with waiver of informed consent and/or conformity to the Declaration of Helsinki is in compliance with the Ethical standards requirements.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Bio-Imaging and Radiological Sciences, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, L.go A. Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy

    Paolo Belli, Melania Costantini, Enida Bufi, Giuseppe Giovanni Giardina, Pierluigi Rinaldi & Lorenzo Bonomo

  2. Department of Surgery, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, L.go A. Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy

    Gianluca Franceschini

Authors
  1. Paolo Belli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Melania Costantini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Enida Bufi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Giuseppe Giovanni Giardina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Pierluigi Rinaldi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gianluca Franceschini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lorenzo Bonomo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paolo Belli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Belli, P., Costantini, M., Bufi, E. et al. Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer characterisation: correlations between the apparent diffusion coefficient and major prognostic factors. Radiol med 120, 268–276 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-014-0442-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-014-0442-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation