The effect of dynamic contrast magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) in the diagnosis of breast cancer cases

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of dynamic contrast magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) in the diagnosis of breast cancer (BC) and to compare it with ultrasonography (USG).
Materials and methods: In our study, 78 patients who underwent preoperative DCE-MRI and USG in our diagnosis center in TRNC between 2009 and 2022 and were diagnosed with BC histopathologically were investigated retrospectively.Findings obtained according to the BI-RADS classification in both methods, detection of BC, detection of tumor foci (TF) in multiple tumors (multicentric and multifocal tumors) (MT), correct diagnosis rates (CDR)s in invasive lobular cancers (ILC) and invasive ductal cancers (IDC) were compared and the results were evaluated statistically.
Results: The mean age of the ILC and MT cases was found to be significantly lower than the IDC and unifocal tumor(UF) cases (p<0.05). CDRs in BC cases; 94.8% of DCE-MRI, 78.2% of USG (p<0.05), in the detection of TFs; 94.5% of DCE-MRI, 73.6% of USG (p<0.05), in detecting ILC cases; DCE-MRI 87.5%, USG 37.5% (p>0.05) in detecting IDC cases; it was determined as 95.7% in DCE-MRI and 80.2% in USG (p<0.05).
Conclusion: DCE-MRI is a more effective diagnostic method than USG in the diagnosis of BC cases and TFs in MT cases.

Keywords

• Magnetic resonance with dynamic contrast
• breast cancer
• multiple tumors
• ultrasonography
• Dinamik kontrastlı manyetik rezonans
• meme kanseri
• multipl tümör
• ultrasonografi.
• ultrasonografi

Meme kanseri olgularının tanısında dinamik kontrastlı manyetik rezonans görüntüleme (DCE-MRI) yönteminin etkisi

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı meme kanseri (MK) tanısında; dinamik kontrastlı manyetik rezonans görüntülemenin (DCE-MRI) etkisini araştırmak ve ultrasonografi (USG) ile karşılaştırmaktır.
Gereç ve yöntem: Çalışmamızda 2009 ve 2022 yılları arasında KKTC deki tanı merkezimizde preoperative olarak DCE-MRI ve USG yapılan ve histopatolojik olarak MK tanısı konulan 78 olgu retrospektif olarak araştırılmıştır.
Olgularda her iki yöntemde Bİ-RADS sınıflamasına göre elde edilen bulgular; MK tespiti, multipl tümörlerde (multisentrik ve multifocal tümör) (MT) tümör odaklarının (TO) tespitinde, invaziv lobüler kanserlerde (İLK) ve invaziv duktal kanserlerde (İDK) doğru tanı oranları karşılaştırılmış, sonuçlar istatistiksel olarak değerlendirilmiştir.
Bulgular: İLK ve MT olgularının yaş ortalaması, İDK ve tek odaklı tümör (TOT) olgularına göre anlamlı ölçüde küçük bulunmuştur (p<0,05). DTO ları MK olgularında; DCE-MRI’ın %94,8, USG’nin %78,2 (p<0,05), TO larının tespitinde; DCE-MRI’ın %94,5, USG’nin %73,6 (p<0.05), İLK olgularını saptamada; DCE-MRI’ın %87,5, USG’nin %37,5 (p>0,05), İDK olgularını saptamada; DCE-MRI’ın %95,7, USG’nin%80,2 (p<0,05) olarak tespit edilmiştir.
Sonuç: DCE-MRI, MK olgularının ve MT olgularında TO’ların tanısında USG’ye göre daha etkili bir tanı yöntemidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dinamik kontrastlı manyetik rezonans
• meme kanseri
• multipl tümör
• ultrasonografi

References

1. 1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA 2021; 71:209-244. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660
2. 2. Zubair M, Wang S, Ali N. Advanced Approaches to Breast Cancer Classification and Diagnosis.Front Pharmacol 2021;11:632079. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2020.632079
3. 3. Acar H, Özer N. Are serum moleculer markers more effective than the invasive methods used in the diagnosis of breast cancers? Turkish j Biochemistry 2021; 46:671-677. https://doi.org/10.1515/tjb-2021-0001
4. 4. Acar H, Özer N: What is the effect of advanced diagnostic methods on sensitivity and survival in the multiple breast cancers? A systematic analysis and comparison.Asian Journal of Medical Sciences 2021;12: 138-145. https://doi.org/10.3126/ajms.v12i7.34352
5. 5. Bozzini A, Renne G, Meneghetti L, Bandi G, Santos G, VentoAR, et al. Sensitivity of imaging for multifocal-multicentric breast carcinoma. BMC Cancer 2008; 8:1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-8-275
6. 6. Liu W, Zong M, Gong H, Ling L, Ye X, Wang S et al. Comparison of Diagnostic Efficacy Between Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound and DCE-MRI for Mass- and Non-Mass-Like Enhancement Types in Breast Lesions. Cancer Manag Res 2020; 12: 13567–13578.
7. 7. Song SU, Eun Kyung Park, Kyu Ran Cho, Bo Kyoung Seo, Ok Hee Woo, Seung Pil Jung, Sung Bum Cho. Additional value of diffusion-weighted imaging to evaluate multifocal and multicentric breast cancer detected using pre-operative breast MRI. European Radiology 2017; 27:4819-4827. https://10.1007/s00330-017-4898-5
8. 8. Ohuchi N, Suziki A, Sobue T, Kawai M, Yamamoto S, Zheng YF, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of mammography and adjunctive ultrasonography to screen for breast cancer in the Japan Strategic Anti-cancer Randomized Trial (J-START): a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet 2016;387:341-348. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00774-6 9. Freer PE. Mammographic breast density: impact on breast cancer risk and implications for screening. Radiographics 2015;35(2):302–315. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.352140106 10. Warren LM, Dance DR, Young KC. Radiation risk of breast screening in England with digital mammography. Br J Radiol 2016; 89:20150897 https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20150897

9. 11. Mann RM, Kuhl CK, Moy L. Contrast-enhanced MRI for breast cancer screening. JMRI 2019; 50:377-390. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26654
10. 12. Sood R, Rositch AF, Shakooor D,Ambinder E,Pool KL, Pollack E. Ultrasound for Breast Cancer Detection Globally: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Journal of Global Oncology 2019;5:1-17. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
11. 13. Partridge SC, Amornsiripanitch N. DWI in the Assessment of Breast Lesions. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2017; 26:201-209. https://10.1097/RMR.0000000000000137
12. 14. An YY, Kim SH, Kang BJ. Differentiation of malignant and benign breast lesions: Added value of the qualitative analysis of breast lesions on diffusionweighted imaging (DWI) using readout-segmented echo-planar imaging at 3.0 T. PloS one. 2017; 12:1-18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174681
13. 15. Liu H-L, Zong M, Wei H, Lou J-J, Wang S-Q, Zou Q-G, et al. Differentiation between malignant and benign breast masses: combination of semi-quantitative analysis on DCE-MRI and histogram analysis of ADC maps. Clinical radiology 2018; 73:460-466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2017.11.026
14. 16. Zhang M, Horvat JV, Bernard-Davila B, Marino MA, Leithner D, OchoaAlbiztegui RE, et al. Multiparametric MRI model with dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted imaging enables breast cancer diagnosis with high accuracy. J Magn Reson Imaging 2019; 49:864-874. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26285
15. 17. Wilson N., Ironside A., Diana A., Oikonomidou O. Lobular Breast Cancer: A Review. Front. Oncol 2021; 10:591399. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.5913
16. 18. Patel BK, Davis J, Ferraro C, Kosiorek H, Hasselbach K, Ocal T, et al. Value added of preoperative contrast-enhanced digital mammography in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Clinical breast cancer 2018;18:1339- 1345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2018.07.012
17. 19. Wen X, Yu Y, Yu X, Cheng W, Wang Z, Liu L, et al. Correlations Between Ultrasonographic Findings of Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast and Intrinsic Subtypes. Ultraschall in der Medizin-European Journal of Ultrasound 2019; 40:764-770. https://10.1055/a-0715-1668
18. 20. Badillo FE, Napoleone M, Ocana A, Templeton AJ, Seruga B and Mubarek MA. Effect of multifocality and multicentricity on outcome in early stage breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014; 146:235-244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-014-3018-3
19. 21. Neri A, Marrelli D, Megha T, Bettarini F, Tacchini D, Franco LD. “Clinical significance of multifocal and multicentric breast cancers and choice of surgical treatment: a retrospective study on a series of 1158 cases” BMC Surgery 2015; 15:2-10. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2482/15/1