Quantitative analysis of 3-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging in the differential diagnosis of breast lesions

Ma,Zhen‑Shen; Wang,Da‑Wei; Sun,Xiu‑Bin; Shi,Hao; Pang,Tao; Dong,Gui‑Qing; Zhang,Cheng‑Qi

doi:10.3892/etm.2014.2154

Quantitative analysis of 3-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging in the differential diagnosis of breast lesions

Authors:
- Zhen‑Shen Ma
- Da‑Wei Wang
- Xiu‑Bin Sun
- Hao Shi
- Tao Pang
- Gui‑Qing Dong
- Cheng‑Qi Zhang
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Medical Imaging, Qianfoshan Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong 250014, P.R. China, Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong 250012, P.R. China
Published online on: December 22, 2014 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2014.2154
Pages: 913-918

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the value of quantitative 3‑Tesla (3T) magnetic resonance (MR) assessment in the diagnosis of breast lesions. A total of 44 patients with breast lesions were selected. All the patients underwent MR plain scanning and T1 dynamic contrast‑enhanced imaging. The vascular function parameters of the lesions, namely volume transfer constant (Ktrans), rate constant (Kep), extravascular extracellular volume fraction (Ve) and integrated area under the curve (iAUC), were acquired. These parameters were compared between benign and malignant breast lesions, and also among differential grades of invasive ductal carcinoma. The values of Ktrans, Kep and iAUC were significantly different between the benign and malignant tumors; however, the values of Ve in the benign and malignant tumors were not significantly different. The values of Ktrans, Kep and iAUC in invasive ductal carcinoma were significantly different between grade I and grade II, and between grade I and grade III; however, there was no significant difference between grade II and grade III. The Ve values in invasive ductal carcinoma did not significantly differ among grades I, II and III. Among the vascular function parameters, Ktrans exhibited the highest sensitivity and specificity in the differentiation of benign and malignant lesions. Quantitative 3‑T MR assessment is valuable in the diagnosis of benign and malignant breast lesions. It can also provide reference values for the differentiation of the histological grade of breast invasive ductal carcinoma.

View Figures

View References

1	Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, Carter WB, Bhargavan M, Lewis RS and Ioffe OB: Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology. 233:830–849. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Liberman L: Breast cancer screening with MRI - what are the data for patients at high risk? N Engl J Med. 351:497–500. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Folkman J: Tumor angiogenesis: therapeutic implications. N Engl J Med. 285:1182–1186. 1971. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Weidner N, Folkman J, Pozza F, et al: Tumor angiogenesis: a new significant and independent prognostic indicator in early-stage breast carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 84:1875–1887. 1992. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	DeVries A, Griebel J, et al: Perfusion-index values evaluated by dynamic magnetic resonance imaging in advanced rectal carcinoma. A new predictor of response to preoperative radiochemotherapy? Strahlenther Onkol. 176:567–572. 2000.(In German).
6	Kremer S, Grand S, Rémy C, et al: Contribution of dynamic contrast MR imaging to the differentiation between dural metastasis and meningioma. Neuroradiology. 46:642–648. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Haris M, Gupta RK, Singh A, et al: Differentiation of infective from neoplastic brain lesions by dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Neuroradiology. 50:531–540. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Zhang H, Rödiger LA, et al: Perfusion MR imaging for differentiation of benign and malignant meningiomas. Neuroradiology. 50:525–530. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Pickles MD, Manton DJ, Lowry M and Turnbull LW: Prognostic value of pre-treatment DCE-MRI parameters in predicting disease free and overall survival for breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Radiol. 71:498–505. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar
10	Kang TW, Kim ST, Byun HS, et al: Morphological and functional MRI, MRS, perfusion and diffusion changes after radiosurgery of brain metastasis. Eur J Radiol. 72:370–380. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar
11	Hauser T, Essig M, Jensen A, et al: Characterization and therapy monitoring of head and neck carcinomas using diffusion-imaging-based intravoxel incoherent motion parameters-preliminary results. Neuroradiology. 55:527–536. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Larsen VA, Simonsen HJ, Law I, Larsson HB and Hansen AE: Evaluation of dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted perfusion MRI in the differentiation of tumor recurrence from radiation necrosis. Neuroradiology. 55:361–369. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar
13	Bäuerle T, Seyler L, Münter M, et al: Diffusion-weighted imaging in rectal carcinoma patients without and after chemoradiotherapy: a comparative study with histology. Eur J Radiol. 82:444–452. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar
14	Jones EF, Sinha SP, Newitt DC, Klifa C, Kornak J, Park CC and Hylton NM: Mri enhancement in stromal tissue surrounding breast tumors: association with recurrence free survival following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. PLoS One. 8:e619692013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Li X, Arlinghaus LR, Ayers GD, et al: Dce-mri analysis methods for predicting the response of breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: pilot study findings. Magn Reson Med. 71:1592–1602. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar
16	Schnall MD, Blume J, Bluemke DA, DeAngelis GA, et al: Diagnostic architectural and dynamic features at breast MR imaging: multicenter study. Radiology. 238:42–53. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar
17	Rykala J, Przybylowska K, Majsterek I, et al: Angiogenesis markers quantification in breast cancer and their correlation with clinicopathological prognostic variables. Pathol Oncol Res. 17:809–817. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Medeiros LR, Duarte CS, Rosa DD, Edelweiss MI, et al: Accuracy of magnetic resonance in suspicious breast lesions: a systematic quantitative review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 126:273–285. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Tofts PS, Brix G, Buckley DL, et al: Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced t1-weighted mri of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging. 10:223–232. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Padhani AR and Husband JE: Dynamic contrast-enhanced mri studies in oncology with an emphasis on quantification, validation and human studies. Clin Radiol. 56:607–620. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Preda A, van Vliet M, Krestin GP, Brasch RC and van Dijke CF: Magnetic resonance macromolecular agents for monitoring tumor microvessels and angiogenesis inhibition. Invest Radiol. 41:325–331. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Ocak I, Bernardo M, Metzger G, Barrett T, Pinto P, Albert PS and Choyke PL: Dynamic contrast-enhanced mri of prostate cancer at 3 t: a study of pharmacokinetic parameters. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 189:849–858. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	Yao WW, Zhang H, Ding B, et al: Rectal cancer: 3d dynamic contrast-enhanced mri; correlation with microvascular density and clinicopathological features. Radiol med. 116:366–374. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Li X, Arlinghaus LR, Ayers GD, et al: dce-mri analysis methods for predicting the response of breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: pilot study findings. Magn Reson Med. 71:1592–1602. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar
25	Nilsen LB, Fangberget A, Geier OM, Engebraaten O, Borgen E, Olsen DR and Seierstad T: Associations between tumor vascularization assessed by in vivo dce-mri and the presence of disseminated tumor cells in bone marrow in breast cancer patients at the time of diagnosis. J Magn Reson Imaging. Jan 27–2014.(Epub ahead of print). View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
26	Jain RK: Normalization of tumor vasculature: an emerging concept in antiangiogenic therapy. Science. 307:58–62. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
27	Tofts PS: Modeling tracer kinetics in dynamic gd-dtpa mr imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 7:91–101. 1997. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
28	Wang Y1, Huang W, Panicek DM, et al: Feasibility of using limited-population-based arterial input function for pharmacokinetic modeling of osteosarcoma dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI data. Magn Reson Med. 59:1183–1189. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
29	Koo HR, Cho N, Song IC, et al: Correlation of perfusion parameters on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI with prognostic factors and subtypes of breast cancers. J Magn Reson Imaging. 36:145–151. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
30	Siegmann KC, Müller-Schimpfle M, Schick F, et al: Mr imaging-detected breast lesions: histopathologic correlation of lesion characteristics and signal intensity data. Am J Roentgenol. 178:1403–1409. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar
31	Baek HM, Chen JH, Nie K, et al: Predicting pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer by using mr imaging and quantitative 1h mr spectroscopy. Radiology. 251:653–662. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI