On the Additional Information Provided by 3T-MRI ADC in Predicting Tumor Cellularity and Microscopic Behavior.
3T-MRI
Ki-67 index
apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC)
breast cancer
cellularity
grading
tumor aggressiveness
Journal
Cancers
ISSN: 2072-6694
Titre abrégé: Cancers (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101526829
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Oct 2021
15 Oct 2021
Historique:
received:
31
08
2021
revised:
11
10
2021
accepted:
13
10
2021
entrez:
23
10
2021
pubmed:
24
10
2021
medline:
24
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
to evaluate whether Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) values of invasive breast cancer, provided by 3T Diffusion Weighted-Images (DWI), may represent a non-invasive predictor of pathophysiologic tumor aggressiveness. 100 Patients with histologically proven invasive breast cancers who underwent a 3T-MRI examination were included in the study. All MRI examinations included dynamic contrast-enhanced and DWI/ADC sequences. ADC value were calculated for each lesion. Tumor grade was determined according to the Nottingham Grading System, and immuno-histochemical analysis was performed to assess molecular receptors, cellularity rate, on both biopsy and surgical specimens, and proliferation rate (Ki-67 index). Spearman's Rho test was used to correlate ADC values with histological (grading, Ki-67 index and cellularity) and MRI features. ADC values were compared among the different grading (G1, G2, G3), Ki-67 (<20% and >20%) and cellularity groups (<50%, 50-70% and >70%), using Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests. ROC curves were performed to demonstrate the accuracy of the ADC values in predicting the grading, Ki-67 index and cellularity groups. ADC values correlated significantly with grading, ER receptor status, Ki-67 index and cellularity rates. ADC values were significantly higher for G1 compared with G2 and for G1 compared with G3 and for Ki-67 < 20% than Ki-67 > 20%. The Kruskal-Wallis test showed that ADC values were significantly different among the three grading groups, the three biopsy cellularity groups and the three surgical cellularity groups. The best ROC curves were obtained for the G3 group (AUC of 0.720), for G2 + G3 (AUC of 0.835), for Ki-67 > 20% (AUC of 0.679) and for surgical cellularity rate > 70% (AUC of 0.805). 3T-DWI ADC is a direct predictor of cellular aggressiveness and proliferation in invasive breast carcinoma, and can be used as a supporting non-invasive factor to characterize macroscopic lesion behavior especially before surgery.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
to evaluate whether Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) values of invasive breast cancer, provided by 3T Diffusion Weighted-Images (DWI), may represent a non-invasive predictor of pathophysiologic tumor aggressiveness.
METHODS
METHODS
100 Patients with histologically proven invasive breast cancers who underwent a 3T-MRI examination were included in the study. All MRI examinations included dynamic contrast-enhanced and DWI/ADC sequences. ADC value were calculated for each lesion. Tumor grade was determined according to the Nottingham Grading System, and immuno-histochemical analysis was performed to assess molecular receptors, cellularity rate, on both biopsy and surgical specimens, and proliferation rate (Ki-67 index). Spearman's Rho test was used to correlate ADC values with histological (grading, Ki-67 index and cellularity) and MRI features. ADC values were compared among the different grading (G1, G2, G3), Ki-67 (<20% and >20%) and cellularity groups (<50%, 50-70% and >70%), using Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests. ROC curves were performed to demonstrate the accuracy of the ADC values in predicting the grading, Ki-67 index and cellularity groups.
RESULTS
RESULTS
ADC values correlated significantly with grading, ER receptor status, Ki-67 index and cellularity rates. ADC values were significantly higher for G1 compared with G2 and for G1 compared with G3 and for Ki-67 < 20% than Ki-67 > 20%. The Kruskal-Wallis test showed that ADC values were significantly different among the three grading groups, the three biopsy cellularity groups and the three surgical cellularity groups. The best ROC curves were obtained for the G3 group (AUC of 0.720), for G2 + G3 (AUC of 0.835), for Ki-67 > 20% (AUC of 0.679) and for surgical cellularity rate > 70% (AUC of 0.805).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
3T-DWI ADC is a direct predictor of cellular aggressiveness and proliferation in invasive breast carcinoma, and can be used as a supporting non-invasive factor to characterize macroscopic lesion behavior especially before surgery.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34680316
pii: cancers13205167
doi: 10.3390/cancers13205167
pmc: PMC8534264
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Oncol Lett. 2018 May;15(5):8134-8140
pubmed: 29849809
Br J Radiol. 2016;89(1060):20150614
pubmed: 26853508
Iran J Radiol. 2016 Jan 16;13(1):e33133
pubmed: 27127582
Breast Cancer Res. 2010;12(4):207
pubmed: 20804570
Magn Reson Med Sci. 2008;7(1):23-9
pubmed: 18460845
Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 1994 Oct;54(10):552-8
pubmed: 8001751
Ann Oncol. 2019 Oct 1;30(10):1674
pubmed: 31236598
Breast Cancer Res. 2008;10(4):R65
pubmed: 18662380
Br J Radiol. 2012 Aug;85(1016):e474-9
pubmed: 22128125
J Breast Cancer. 2014 Mar;17(1):40-6
pubmed: 24744796
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Oct 1;25(28):4414-22
pubmed: 17785706
Histopathology. 1991 Nov;19(5):403-10
pubmed: 1757079
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2005 Sep-Oct;29(5):644-9
pubmed: 16163035
Invest Radiol. 2018 Oct;53(10):587-595
pubmed: 29620604
J Am Coll Surg. 1995 Mar;180(3):297-306
pubmed: 7874340
BJR Open. 2019 Mar 08;1(1):20180049
pubmed: 33178933
Breast. 2003 Oct;12(5):320-7
pubmed: 14659147
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013 Jun;139(2):371-9
pubmed: 23709090
Cancer. 2004 Apr 1;100(7):1365-73
pubmed: 15042669
Eur J Radiol. 2014 Dec;83(12):2144-2150
pubmed: 25305145
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015 Mar;41(3):610-5
pubmed: 24590513
Clin Cancer Res. 2010 Dec 15;16(24):6100-10
pubmed: 21169259
Radiology. 2019 Sep;292(3):520-536
pubmed: 31361209
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015 Jan;41(1):175-82
pubmed: 24353241
Clin Imaging. 2018 Nov - Dec;52:16-22
pubmed: 29501957
Histopathology. 1995 Sep;27(3):219-26
pubmed: 8522285
Tumour Biol. 2012 Oct;33(5):1573-80
pubmed: 22581521
Virchows Arch. 2017 Jun;470(6):611-617
pubmed: 28421340
Cancer. 1991 Nov 15;68(10):2142-9
pubmed: 1913453
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011 Feb;125(3):687-96
pubmed: 20361254
Comput Math Methods Med. 2019 Jun 9;2019:3041250
pubmed: 31281408
J Oncol. 2010;2010:
pubmed: 20871661
Acad Radiol. 2019 Oct;26(10):1352-1357
pubmed: 30711409
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1999 Jan;53(1):1-8
pubmed: 10206067
Radiology. 2015 Jan;274(1):66-73
pubmed: 25203132
World J Clin Oncol. 2014 Aug 10;5(3):412-24
pubmed: 25114856
Balkan Med J. 2016 May;33(3):301-7
pubmed: 27308074
J Med Syst. 2019 Feb 27;43(4):83
pubmed: 30810823
Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2017 Oct;26(5):201-209
pubmed: 28961569
J Breast Health. 2016 Jul 1;12(3):123-132
pubmed: 28331748
Eur J Breast Health. 2017 Oct 01;13(4):168-174
pubmed: 29082373
Chromosoma. 2018 Jun;127(2):175-186
pubmed: 29322240