Diffusion Weighted MR Imaging of Breast and Correlation of Prognostic Factors in Breast Cancer

Year 2016, Volume: 33 Issue: 3, 301 - 307, 01.05.2016

İnci Kızıldağ Yırgın Gözde Arslan Enis Öztürk Hakan Yırgın Nihat Taşdemir Ayşegül Akdoğan Gemici Fatma Çelik Kabul Eyüp Kaya

Abstract

Background: Through Diffusion Weighted Imaging (DWI), information related to early molecular changes, changes in the permeability of cell membranes, and early morphologic and physiologic changes such as cell swelling can be obtained. Aims: We investigated the correlation between the prognostic factors of breast cancer and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in DWI sequences of malignant lesions. Study Design: Retrospective cross-sectional study. Methods: Patients who were referred to our clinic between September 2012 and September 2013, who underwent dynamic breast MRI before or after biopsy and whose biopsy results were determined as malignant, were included in our study. Before the dynamic analysis, DWI sequences were taken. ADC relationship with all prognostic factors was investigated. Pearson correlation test was used to compare the numerical data, while Spearman correlation and Fisher exact tests were used to compare the categorical data. The advanced relationships were evaluated with linear regression analysis and univariate analysis. The efficiency of the parameters was evaluated using ROC analysis. The significance level (P) was accepted as 0.05. Results: In total, 41 female patients with an average age of 49.4 years (age interval 21-77) and 44 lesions were included into the study. In the Pearson correlation test, no statistically significant difference was determined between ADC and the patient’s age and tumor size. In the Spearman correlation test, a statistically significant difference was determined between nuclear grade (NG) and ADC (r=-0.424, p=0.04); no statistically significant correlation was observed between the other prognostic factors with each other and ADC values. In the linear regression analysis, the relationship of NG with ADC was found to be more significant alone than when comparing all parameters (corrected r2=0.196, p=0.005). Further evaluations between the NG and ADC correlation were carried out with ROC analysis. A statistically significant difference was determined when NG 1 separately was compared with NG 2 and 3 (p=0.03). A statistically significant difference was also determined (p=0.05) in the comparison of NG 1 with only NG 3. No statistically significant difference was determined when NG 2 separately was compared with NG 1 and NG 3 and when NG 3 separately was compared with NG 1 and 2 (p=0.431, p=0.097), Conclusion: We found that ADC values obtained by breast DWI showed a higher correlation with the NG of breast cancer, which is an important factor in the patient’s treatment. Predictions can be made about NG by analyzing the ADC values. Additional studies are needed, however, and the ADC value of the lesion can be used as a prognostic factor proving the aggressiveness.

Keywords

Breast cancer, breast MR, diffusion

References

• 1. Abdalla F, Boder J, Markus R, Hashmi H, Buhmeıda A, Collan Y. Correlation of nuclear morphometry of breast cancer in histological sections with clinicopathological features and prognosis. Anticancer Res 2009;29:1771-6.
• 2. Donegan WL. Tumor-Related Prognostic Factors for Breast Cancer. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 1997;47:28-51. [CrossRef]
• 3. Gouhar GK, El –Hariri MA, Lotfy WE. Malignant breast tumours: Correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient values using diffusion-weighted images and dynamic contrast–enhancement ratio with histologic grading. The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine 2011;42:451-60. [CrossRef]
• 4. Martincich L, Deantoni V, Bertotto I, Redana S, Kubatzki F, Sarotto I, et al. Correlations between diffusion-weighted imaging and breast cancer biomarkers. Eur Radiol 2012;22:1519-28. [CrossRef]
• 5. Thomassin Naggara I, De Bazelaire C, Chopier J, Bazot M, Marsault C, Trop I. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of the breast: Advantages and pitfalls. Eur J Radiol 2012;82:435-6. [CrossRef]
• 6. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 2002;225:165-75. [CrossRef]
• 7. Segel M, Paulus D, Hortobagyi G. Advanced primary breast cancer: assessment mammography of response to induction chemotherapy. Radiology 1988;169:49-54. [CrossRef]
• 8. Woodhams R, Matsunaga K, Kan S, Hata H, Ozaki M, Iwabuchi K, et al. ADC mapping of benign and malignant breast tumors, Magn Reson Med Sci 2005;4;35-42. [CrossRef]
• 9. Rubesova E, Grell AS, De Maertelaer V, Metens T, Chao SL, Lemort M. Quantitative diffusion imaging in breast cancer: a clinical prospective study. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006;24:319-24. [CrossRef]
• 10. Kuroki Y, Nasu K, Kuroki S, Murakami K, Hayashi T, Sekiguchi R, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of breast cancer with the sensitivity encoding technique: analysis of the apparent diffusion coefficient value. Magn Reson Med Sci 2004;3:79-85. [CrossRef