Diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging of breast cancer: associations between diffusion metrics and histological prognostic factors
Tóm tắt
To investigate whether quantitative diffusion metrics derived from diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) are associated with histological prognostic factors in breast cancer patients. This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board, and informed consent was waived. Between 2016 and 2017, 251 consecutive women (mean age, 53.8 years) with breast cancer (230 invasive, 21 in situ) who underwent preoperative magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with DTI were identified. Diffusion gradients were applied in 20 directions (b values, 0 and 1,000 s/mm2). DTI metrics – mean diffusivity (MD) and fractional anisotropy (FA) – were measured for breast lesions and contralateral normal breast by two radiologists and were correlated with histological findings using the Mann-Whitney U-test and linear regression analysis. MD and FA were significantly lower for breast cancers than for normal fibroglandular tissues (1.03 ± 0.25×10−3 mm2/s vs. 1.60 ± 0.19×10−3 mm2/s, p < 0.001 and 0.29 ± 0.09 vs. 0.33 ± 0.06, p < 0.001, respectively). Significant differences were observed in MD between invasive cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ lesions (p < 0.001). Multivariate linear analysis showed that larger size (>2 cm) (p = 0.007), high histological grade (grade 3) (p = 0.045) and axillary node metastasis (p = 0.009) were significantly associated with lower MD in invasive breast cancer patients. Larger size (p < 0.001) and high histological grade (p = 0.025) were significantly associated with lower FA. DTI-derived diffusion metrics, such as MD and FA, are associated with histological prognostic factors in breast cancer patients. • MD was significantly lower for breast cancers than for normal breast tissues. • FA was significantly lower for breast cancers than for normal breast tissues. • Reduced DTI metrics were associated with poor prognostic factors of breast cancer. • DTI may provide valuable information concerning biological aggressiveness in breast cancer.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Uhl M, Altehoefer C, Kontny U, Il'yasov K, Büchert M, Langer M (2002) MRI-diffusion imaging of neuroblastomas: first results and correlation to histology. Eur Radiol 12:2335–2338
Park MJ, Cha ES, Kang BJ, Ihn YK, Baik JH (2007) The role of diffusion-weighted imaging and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values for breast tumors. Korean J Radiol 8:390–396
Guo Y, Cai Y, Cai Z et al (2002) Differentiation of clinically benign and malignant breast lesions using diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 16:172–178
Marini C, Iacconi C, Giannelli M, Cilotti A, Moretti M, Bartolozzi C (2007) Quantitative diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the differential diagnosis of breast lesion. Eur Radiol 17:2646–2655
Le Bihan D, Mangin JF, Poupon C et al (2001) Diffusion tensor imaging: concepts and applications. J Magn Reson Imaging 13:534–546
Partridge SC, Murthy RS, Ziadloo A, White SW, Allison KH, Lehman CD (2010) Diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging of the normal breast. Magn Reson Imaging 28:320–328
Baltzer PA, Schäfer A, Dietzel M et al (2011) Diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: a pilot study. Eur Radiol 21:1–10
Partridge SC, Ziadloo A, Murthy R et al (2010) Diffusion tensor MRI: preliminary anisotropy measures and mapping of breast tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging 31:339–347
Eyal E, Shapiro-Feinberg M, Furman-Haran E et al (2012) Parametric diffusion tensor imaging of the breast. Invest Radiol 47:284–291
Tsougos I, Svolos P, Kousi E et al (2014) The contribution of diffusion tensor imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy for the differentiation of breast lesions at 3T. Acta Radiol 55:14–23
Cakir O, Arslan A, Inan N et al (2013) Comparison of the diagnostic performances of diffusion parameters in diffusion weighted imaging and diffusion tensor imaging of breast lesions. Eur J Radiol 82:e801–e806
Teruel JR, Goa PE, Sjøbakk TE, Østlie A, Fjøsne HE, Bathen TF (2016) Diffusion weighted imaging for the differentiation of breast tumors: from apparent diffusion coefficient to high order diffusion tensor imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 43:1111–1121
Jiang R, Zeng X, Sun S, Ma Z, Wang X (2016) Assessing detection, discrimination, and risk of breast cancer according to anisotropy parameters of diffusion tensor imaging. Med Sci Monit 22:1318–1328
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
Kim EJ, Kim SH, Park GE et al (2015) Histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient at 3.0 t: correlation with prognostic factors and subtypes of invasive ductal carcinoma. J Magn Reson Imaging 42:1666–1678
Park SH, Moon WK, Cho N et al (2010) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging: pretreatment prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. Radiology 257:56–63
Sharma U, Danishad KK, Seenu V, Jagannathan NR (2009) Longitudinal study of the assessment by MRI and diffusion-weighted imaging of tumor response in patients with locally advanced breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. NMR Biomed 22:104–113
Basser PJ, Pierpaoli C (2011) Microstructural and physiological features of tissues elucidated by quantitative-diffusion-tensor MRI. J Magn Reson 213:560–570
Elston CW, Ellis IO (1991) Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 19:403–410
Allred DC, Harvey JM, Berardo M, Clark GM (1998) Prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer by immunohistochemical analysis. Mod Pathol 11:155–168
Moeder CB, Giltnane JM, Harigopal M et al (2007) Quantitative justification of the change from 10% to 30% for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 scoring in the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guidelines: tumor heterogeneity in breast cancer and its implications for tissue microarray based assessment of outcome. J Clin Oncol 25:5418–5425
Cheang MC, Chia SK, Voduc D et al (2009) Ki67 index, HER2 status, and prognosis of patients with luminal B breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 101:736–750
Yamashita H, Toyama T, Nishio M et al (2006) p53 protein accumulation predicts resistance to endocrine therapy and decreased post-relapse survival in metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 8:R48
Furman-Haran E, Grobgeld D, Nissan N, Shapiro-Feinberg M, Degani H (2016) Can diffusion tensor anisotropy indices assist in breast cancer detection? J Magn Reson Imaging 44:1624–1632
Nezzo M, Di Trani M, Caporale A et al (2016) Mean diffusivity discriminates between prostate cancer with grade group 1&2 and grade groups equal to or greater than 3. Eur J Radiol 85:1794–1801
Li L, Margolis DJ, Deng M et al (2015) Correlation of gleason scores with magnetic resonance diffusion tensor imaging in peripheral zone prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 42:460–467
Goebell E, Paustenbach S, Vaeterlein O et al (2006) Low-grade and anaplastic gliomas: differences in architecture evaluated with diffusion-tensor MR imaging. Radiology 239:217–222
Zikou A, Alexiou GA, Goussia A et al (2016) The role of diffusion tensor imaging and dynamic susceptibility perfusion MRI in the evaluation of meningioma grade and subtype. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 146:109–115
Nissan N, Furman-Haran E, Shapiro-Feinberg M, Grobgeld D, Degani H (2014) Diffusion-tensor MR imaging of the breast: hormonal regulation. Radiology 271:672–680
Kim JY, Suh HB, Kang HJ et al (2016) Apparent diffusion coefficient of breast cancer and normal fibroglandular tissue in diffusion-weighted imaging: the effects of menstrual cycle and menopausal status. Breast Cancer Res Treat 157:31–40
Belli P, Costantini M, Bufi E et al (2015) Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer characterisation: correlations between the apparent diffusion coefficient and major prognostic factors. Radiol Med 120:268–276
Suo S, Zhang K, Cao M et al (2016) Characterization of breast masses as benign or malignant at 3.0 T MRI with whole-lesion histogram analysis of the apparent diffusion coefficient. J Magn Reson Imaging 43:894–902