We have located links that may give you full text access.
The Relationship between Breast Cancer Subtypes, Prognostic Factors, and Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Histogram Analysis.
Current medical imaging. 2024 April 10
BACKGROUND: Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is a useful method to evaluate tumor biology and tumor microstructure. The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value correlates negatively with the cellular density of the tumor.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of the ADC histogram analysis in showing the relationship between breast cancer prognostic factors and ADC parameters.
METHODS: This study is a retrospective observational descriptive study. ADC histogram parameters were evaluated in all tumor volumes of 67 breast cancer patients. Minimum, 5, 10, 25, 50, 75, 90, 95 percentiles, maximum, mean, median ADC values, kurtosis, and skewness were calculated. Breast MRI examinations were performed on a 3T MR scanner. We evaluated the fibroglandular tissue density of bilateral breasts, background enhancement, localization of masses, multifocality-multicentricity, shape, rim, internal contrast enhancement, and kinetic curve on breast MRI. BIRADS scoring was performed according to breast MRI. Pathologically, histologic type, histologic grade, HER 2, Ki 67, ER-, and PR status were evaluated.
RESULTS: A significant correlation was found between tumor volume and ADC scores. There is a significant correlation between min ADC values (p< 0.031), max ADC (p< 0.001), and skewness (p< 0.019). A significant correlation was found between tumor kurtosis and lymph nodes (p< 0.029). There was a significant difference in ADC mean, ADC10%, ADC25%, ADC50%, ADC75%, ADC90%, ADC 95% and ADCmax values depending on ER-and PRstatus. (for ER p = 0.004, p = 0.018, p = 0.010, p = 0.008, p = 0.004, p = 0.004, p = 0.02, p = 0.02 and p = 0.038, for PR p < 0.001, p = 0.028, p = 0.011, p = 0.001, p < 0.001, p =<0.001, p < 0.001, and p < 0.001, respectively; p < 0.05). These values were lower in ER-and PR-positive status than in ER-and PR-negative receptor status. According to HER2 status, there was a statistically significant difference in ADC5% and measurements of the lesions (p = 0.041; p < 0.05). Our study found no significant correlation between other prognostic factors, such as histological grade, Ki-67 indices, and ADC values.
CONCLUSION: Our study found a significant difference between tumor volume, ER- and, PR status, HER2, and lymph node involvement, and some ADC values among prognostic factors for breast cancer. Furthermore, ADC histogram analysis can provide additional value in predicting some prognostic factors.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of the ADC histogram analysis in showing the relationship between breast cancer prognostic factors and ADC parameters.
METHODS: This study is a retrospective observational descriptive study. ADC histogram parameters were evaluated in all tumor volumes of 67 breast cancer patients. Minimum, 5, 10, 25, 50, 75, 90, 95 percentiles, maximum, mean, median ADC values, kurtosis, and skewness were calculated. Breast MRI examinations were performed on a 3T MR scanner. We evaluated the fibroglandular tissue density of bilateral breasts, background enhancement, localization of masses, multifocality-multicentricity, shape, rim, internal contrast enhancement, and kinetic curve on breast MRI. BIRADS scoring was performed according to breast MRI. Pathologically, histologic type, histologic grade, HER 2, Ki 67, ER-, and PR status were evaluated.
RESULTS: A significant correlation was found between tumor volume and ADC scores. There is a significant correlation between min ADC values (p< 0.031), max ADC (p< 0.001), and skewness (p< 0.019). A significant correlation was found between tumor kurtosis and lymph nodes (p< 0.029). There was a significant difference in ADC mean, ADC10%, ADC25%, ADC50%, ADC75%, ADC90%, ADC 95% and ADCmax values depending on ER-and PRstatus. (for ER p = 0.004, p = 0.018, p = 0.010, p = 0.008, p = 0.004, p = 0.004, p = 0.02, p = 0.02 and p = 0.038, for PR p < 0.001, p = 0.028, p = 0.011, p = 0.001, p < 0.001, p =<0.001, p < 0.001, and p < 0.001, respectively; p < 0.05). These values were lower in ER-and PR-positive status than in ER-and PR-negative receptor status. According to HER2 status, there was a statistically significant difference in ADC5% and measurements of the lesions (p = 0.041; p < 0.05). Our study found no significant correlation between other prognostic factors, such as histological grade, Ki-67 indices, and ADC values.
CONCLUSION: Our study found a significant difference between tumor volume, ER- and, PR status, HER2, and lymph node involvement, and some ADC values among prognostic factors for breast cancer. Furthermore, ADC histogram analysis can provide additional value in predicting some prognostic factors.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System: From History to Practice of a Secular Topic.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 5
Prevention and treatment of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke in people with diabetes mellitus: a focus on glucose control and comorbidities.Diabetologia 2024 April 17
British Society for Rheumatology guideline on management of adult and juvenile onset Sjögren disease.Rheumatology 2024 April 17
Albumin: a comprehensive review and practical guideline for clinical use.European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2024 April 13
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app