Correlation between minimum apparent diffusion coefficient values and the histological grade of breast invasive ductal carcinoma

Zhao,Suhong; Guo,Weihua; Tan,Ru; Chen,Peipei; Li,Zhaohua; Sun,Fengguo; Shao,Guangrui

doi:10.3892/ol.2018.8343

Correlation between minimum apparent diffusion coefficient values and the histological grade of breast invasive ductal carcinoma

Authors:
- Suhong Zhao
- Weihua Guo
- Ru Tan
- Peipei Chen
- Zhaohua Li
- Fengguo Sun
- Guangrui Shao
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Radiology, The Second Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong 250033, P.R. China, Department of Radiology, The Second Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong 250033, P.R. China, Department of Radiology, Provincial Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong 250021, P.R. China
Published online on: March 23, 2018 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2018.8343
Pages: 8134-8140

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 present study aimed to investigate the correlation between the minimum apparent diffusion coefficient (ADCmin) value and the histological grade of breast invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). In total, 129 pathologically verified lesions that were subjected to dynamic breast magnetic resonance imaging and diffusion weighted imaging prior to biopsy were included. The ADCmin value was calculated and its correlation with the tumor histological grade was investigated. Tumors of lower grades demonstrated significantly higher ADCmin values as compared with tumors of higher grades (F=33.49; P<0.01). The mean ADCmin values for IDC of grades I, II and III were (1.14±0.11)x10‑3, (0.99±0.12)x10‑3 and (0.86±0.13)x10‑3 mm2/sec, respectively. Statistically significant differences were detected in the mean ADCmin value between tumors of grades II and III (P<0.01), as well as between tumors of grades I and II (P<0.01). In addition, the mean ADCmin values for the less aggressive (grades I and II) and more aggressive (grade III) groups were (1.01±0.13)x10‑3 and (0.86±0.13)x10‑3 mm2/sec, respectively (t=5.76, P<0.01). In conclusion, these data indicated that the ADCmin value was correlated with the IDC histological grade, and lower ADCmin values were associated with a higher histological grade and more aggressiveness. Thus, the ADCmin value may be considered as a promising prognostic parameter in identifying tumor aggressiveness.

View Figures

View References

1	Hawthorn L, Luce J, Stein L and Rothschild J: Integration of transcript expression, copy number and LOH analysis of infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the breast. BMC Cancer. 10:4602010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Rakha EA, Reis-Filho JS, Baehner F, Dabbs DJ, Decker T, Eusebi V, Fox SB, Ichihara S, Jacquemier J, Lakhani SR, et al: Breast cancer prognostic classification in the molecular era: The role of histological grade. Breast Cancer Res. 12:2072010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Wirapati P, Sotiriou C, Kunkel S, Farmer P, Pradervand S, Haibe-Kains B, Desmedt C, Ignatiadis M, Sengstag T, Schütz F, et al: Meta-analysis of gene expression profiles in breast cancer: Toward a unified understanding of breast cancer subtyping and prognosis signatures. Breast Cancer Res. 10:R652008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Sundquist M, Thorstenson S, Brudin L, Nordenskjold B and Nordenskjöld B: Applying the nottingham prognostic index to a Swedish breast cancer population. South East Swedish Breast Cancer Study Group. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 53:1–8. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Elston CW and Ellis IO: 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. 1991. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Trudeau ME, Pritchard KI, Chapman JA, Hanna WM, Kahn HJ, Murray D, Sawka CA, Mobbs BG, Andrulis I, McCready DR and Lickley HL: Prognostic factors affecting the natural history of node-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 89:35–45. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Guo Y, Cai YQ, Cai ZL, Gao YG, An NY, Ma L, Mahankali S and Gao JH: Differentiation of clinically benign and malignant breast lesions using diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 16:172–178. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Bammer R: Basic principles of diffusion-weighted imaging. Eur J Radiol. 45:169–184. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Sinha S, Lucas-Quesada FA, Sinha U, DeBruhl N and Bassett LW: In vivo diffusion-weighted MRI of the breast: Potential for lesion characterization. J Magn Reson Imaging. 15:693–704. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Hosseinzadeh K and Schwarz SD: Endorectal diffusion-weighted imaging in prostate cancer to differentiate malignant and benign peripheral zone tissue. J Magn Reson Imaging. 20:654–661. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Zhao J, Guan H, Li M, Gu H, Qin J and Wu X: Significance of the ADC ratio in the differential diagnosis of breast lesions. Acta Radiol. 57:422–429. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Çabuk G, Puce Nass M, Özgür A, Apaydın FD, Polat A and Orekici G: The diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted imaging and the apparent diffusion coefficient values in the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 59:141–148. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Costantini M, Belli P, Rinaldi P, Bufi E, Giardina G, Franceschini G, Petrone G and Bonomo L: Diffusion-weighted imaging in breast cancer: Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficient and tumour aggressiveness. Clin Radio. 65:1005–1012. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar
14	Razek AA, Gaballa G, Denewer A and Nada N: Invasive ductal carcinoma: Correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient value with pathological prognostic factors. NMR Biomed. 23:619–623. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Belli P, Costantini M, Bufi E, Giardina GG, Rinaldi P, Franceschini G and Bonomo L: Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer characterization: Correlations between the apparent diffusion coefficient and major prognostic factors. Radiol Med. 120:268–276. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Cipolla V, Santucci D, Guerrieri D, Drudi FM, Meggiorini ML and de Felice C: Correlation between 3T apparent diffusion coefficient values and grading of invasive breast carcinoma. Eur J Radio. 183:2144–2150. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar
17	Park SH, Choi HY and Hahn SY: Correlations between apparent diffusion coefficient and invasive ductal carcinoma and pathologic factors on diffusion-weighted imaging MRI at 3.0 Tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging. 41:175–182. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Durando M, Gennaro L, Cho GY, Giri DD, Gnanasigamani MM, Patil S, Sutton EJ, Deasy JO, Morris EA and Thakur SB: Quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient measurement obtained by 3.0 Tesla MRI as a potential noninvasive marker of tumor aggressiveness in breast cancer. Eur J Radiol. 85:1651–1658. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Park EK, Cho KR, Seo BK, Woo OH, Cho SB and Bae JW: Additional value of diffusion-weighted imaging to evaluate prognostic factors of breast cancer: Correlation with the apparent diffusion coefficient. Iran J Radiol. 13:e331332016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Shin HJ, Kim SH, Lee HJ, Gong G, Baek S, Chae EY, Choi WJ, Cha JH and Kim HH: Tumor apparent diffusion coefficient as an imaging biomarker to predict tumor aggressiveness in patients with estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer. NMR Biomed. 29:1070–1078. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Hirano M, Satake H, Ishigaki S, Ikeda M, Kawai H and Naganawa S: Diffusion-weighted imaging of breast masses: Comparison of diagnostic performance using various apparent diffusion coefficient parameters. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 198:717–722. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Elston CW: Classification and grading of invasive breast carcinoma. Verh Dtsch Ges Pathol. 89:35–44. 2005.PubMed/NCBI
23	Bellip P, Costantini M, Bufi E, Magistrelli A, La Torre G and Bonomo L: Diffusion-weighted imaging in breast lesion evaluation. Radiol Med. 115:51–69. 2010.(In English, Italian). View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Woodhams R, Matsunaga K, Kan S, Hata H, Ozaki M, Iwabuchi K, Kuranami M, Watanabe M and Hayakawa K: ADC mapping of benign and malignant breast tumors. Magn Reson Med Sci. 4:35–42. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
25	Mori N, Ota H, Mugikura S, Takasawa C, Tominaga J, Ishida T, Watanabe M, Takase K and Takahashi S: Detection of invasive components in cases of breast ductal carcinoma in situ on biopsy by using apparent diffusion coefficient MR parameters. Eur Radiol. 23:2705–2712. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
26	Kato F, Kudo K, Yamashita H, Wang J, Hosoda M, Hatanaka KC, Mimura R, Oyama-Manabe N and Shirato H: Differences in morphological features and minimum apparent diffusion coefficient values among breast cancer subtypes using 3-tesla MRI. Eur J Radio. 185:96–102. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar
27	Byun BH, Noh WC, Lim I, Lee SS, Cho AR, Park JA, Kim KM, Kim HA, Kim EK, Kim BI, et al: A new method for apparent diffusion coefficient measurement using sequential ¹⁸F-FDG PET and MRI: Correlation with histological grade of invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. Ann Nucl Med. 27:720–728. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
28	Marini C, Iacconi C, Giannelli M, Cilotti A, Moretti M and Bartolozzi C: Quantitative diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the differential diagnosis of breast lesion. Eur Radiol. 17:2646–2655. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
29	Tamura T, Murakami S, Naito K, Yamada T, Fujimoto T and Kikkawa T: Investigation of the optimal b-value to detect breast tumors with diffusion weighted imaging by 1.5-T MRI. Cancer Imaging. 14:112014.PubMed/NCBI