Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Estimation of T2* Relaxation Time of Breast Cancer: Correlation with Clinical, Imaging and Pathological Features

  • Seo, Mirinae (Department of Radiology, Kyung Hee University Hospital, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Ryu, Jung Kyu (Department of Radiology, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Jahng, Geon-Ho (Department of Radiology, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Sohn, Yu-Mee (Department of Radiology, Kyung Hee University Hospital, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Rhee, Sun Jung (Department of Radiology, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Oh, Jang-Hoon (Department of Radiology, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Won, Kyu-Yeoun (Department of Pathology, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University)
  • Received : 2016.04.28
  • Accepted : 2016.08.20
  • Published : 2017.01.01
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to estimate the $T2^*$ relaxation time in breast cancer, and to evaluate the association between the $T2^*$ value with clinical-imaging-pathological features of breast cancer. Materials and Methods: Between January 2011 and July 2013, 107 consecutive women with 107 breast cancers underwent multi-echo $T2^*$-weighted imaging on a 3T clinical magnetic resonance imaging system. The Student's t test and one-way analysis of variance were used to compare the $T2^*$ values of cancer for different groups, based on the clinical-imaging-pathological features. In addition, multiple linear regression analysis was performed to find independent predictive factors associated with the $T2^*$ values. Results: Of the 107 breast cancers, 92 were invasive and 15 were ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). The mean $T2^*$ value of invasive cancers was significantly longer than that of DCIS (p = 0.029). Signal intensity on T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and histologic grade of invasive breast cancers showed significant correlation with $T2^*$ relaxation time in univariate and multivariate analysis. Breast cancer groups with higher signal intensity on T2WI showed longer $T2^*$ relaxation time (p = 0.005). Cancer groups with higher histologic grade showed longer $T2^*$ relaxation time (p = 0.017). Conclusion: The $T2^*$ value is significantly longer in invasive cancer than in DCIS. In invasive cancers, $T2^*$ relaxation time is significantly longer in higher histologic grades and high signal intensity on T2WI. Based on these preliminary data, quantitative $T2^*$ mapping has the potential to be useful in the characterization of breast cancer.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : National Research Foundation (NRF) of Korea

References

  1. Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, Besnard PE, Zonderland HM, Obdeijn IM, et al. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 2004;351:427-437 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa031759
  2. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, Morakkabati-Spitz N, Wardelmann E, Fimmers R, et al. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:8469-8476 https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.00.4960
  3. Leach MO, Boggis CR, Dixon AK, Easton DF, Eeles RA, Evans DG, et al. Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). Lancet 2005;365:1769-1778 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66481-1
  4. Ko ES, Han H, Han BK, Kim SM, Kim RB, Lee GW, et al. Prognostic significance of a complete response on breast MRI in patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy according to the molecular subtype. Korean J Radiol 2015;16:986-995 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2015.16.5.986
  5. Obdeijn IM, Loo CE, Rijnsburger AJ, Wasser MN, Bergers E, Kok T, et al. Assessment of false-negative cases of breast MR imaging in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010;119:399-407 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-009-0607-7
  6. Pages EB, Millet I, Hoa D, Doyon FC, Taourel P. Undiagnosed breast cancer at MR imaging: analysis of causes. Radiology 2012;264:40-50 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12111917
  7. Yoon JH, Kim MJ, Kim EK, Moon HJ. Imaging surveillance of patients with breast cancer after primary treatment: current recommendations. Korean J Radiol 2015;16:219-228 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2015.16.2.219
  8. Huang W, Fisher PR, Dulaimy K, Tudorica LA, O'Hea B, Button TM. Detection of breast malignancy: diagnostic MR protocol for improved specificity. Radiology 2004;232:585-591 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2322030547
  9. Gruber S, Debski BK, Pinker K, Chmelik M, Grabner G, Helbich T, et al. Three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopic imaging at 3 T for the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions. Radiology 2011;261:752-761 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11102096
  10. Yabuuchi H, Matsuo Y, Okafuji T, Kamitani T, Soeda H, Setoguchi T, et al. Enhanced mass on contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging: lesion characterization using combination of dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR images. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008;28:1157-1165 https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.21570
  11. Kul S, Cansu A, Alhan E, Dinc H, Gunes G, Reis A. Contribution of diffusion-weighted imaging to dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in the characterization of breast tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;196:210-217 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.4258
  12. Seo M, Cho N, Bae MS, Koo HR, Kim WH, Lee SH, et al. Features of undiagnosed breast cancers at screening breast MR imaging and potential utility of computer-aided evaluation. Korean J Radiol 2016;17:59-68 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2016.17.1.59
  13. Chavhan GB, Babyn PS, Thomas B, Shroff MM, Haacke EM. Principles, techniques, and applications of T2*-based MR imaging and its special applications. Radiographics 2009;29:1433-1449 https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.295095034
  14. Gonzalez Hernando C, Esteban L, Canas T, Van den Brule E, Pastrana M. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in oncology. Clin Transl Oncol 2010;12:606-613 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-010-0565-x
  15. Padhani AR, Krohn KA, Lewis JS, Alber M. Imaging oxygenation of human tumours. Eur Radiol 2007;17:861-872 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0431-y
  16. Busk M, Horsman MR. Relevance of hypoxia in radiation oncology: pathophysiology, tumor biology and implications for treatment. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013;57:219-234
  17. McPhail LD, Robinson SP. Intrinsic susceptibility MR imaging of chemically induced rat mammary tumors: relationship to histologic assessment of hypoxia and fibrosis. Radiology 2010;254:110-118 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2541090395
  18. Li SP, Taylor NJ, Makris A, Ah-See ML, Beresford MJ, Stirling JJ, et al. Primary human breast adenocarcinoma: imaging and histologic correlates of intrinsic susceptibility-weighted MR imaging before and during chemotherapy. Radiology 2010;257:643-652 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10100421
  19. Liu M, Guo X, Wang S, Jin M, Wang Y, Li J, et al. BOLD-MRI of breast invasive ductal carcinoma: correlation of R2* value and the expression of HIF-$1{\alpha}$. Eur Radiol 2013;23:3221-3227 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2937-4
  20. Padhani A. Science to practice: what does MR oxygenation imaging tell us about human breast cancer hypoxia? Radiology 2010;254:1-3 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.091669
  21. Ryu JK, Oh JH, Kim HG, Rhee SJ, Seo M, Jahng GH. Estimation of T2* relaxation times for the glandular tissue and fat of breast at 3T MRI system. JKSMRM 2014;18:1-6
  22. Uematsu T, Kasami M, Yuen S. Triple-negative breast cancer: correlation between MR imaging and pathologic findings. Radiology 2009;250:638-647 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2503081054
  23. Elston CW, 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 1991;19:403-410 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.1991.tb00229.x
  24. Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Wolff AC, Mangu PB, Temin S. American society of clinical oncology/college of american pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J Oncol Pract 2010;6:195-197 https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.777003
  25. Dolan M, Snover D. Comparison of immunohistochemical and fluorescence in situ hybridization assessment of HER-2 status in routine practice. Am J Clin Pathol 2005;123:766-770 https://doi.org/10.1309/Q0DGL26RUCK1K5EV
  26. Cheang MC, Chia SK, Voduc D, Gao D, Leung S, Snider J, et al. Ki67 index, HER2 status, and prognosis of patients with luminal B breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:736-750 https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djp082
  27. Hoskin PJ, Carnell DM, Taylor NJ, Smith RE, Stirling JJ, Daley FM, et al. Hypoxia in prostate cancer: correlation of BOLD-MRI with pimonidazole immunohistochemistry-initial observations. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;68:1065-1071 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.01.018
  28. Hohenberger P, Felgner C, Haensch W, Schlag PM. Tumor oxygenation correlates with molecular growth determinants in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1998;48:97-106 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005921513083
  29. Hockel M, Vaupel P. Tumor hypoxia: definitions and current clinical, biologic, and molecular aspects. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:266-276 https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/93.4.266
  30. Ko ES, Han BK, Kim RB, Cho EY, Ahn S, Nam SJ, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient in estrogen receptor-positive invasive ductal breast carcinoma: correlations with tumor-stroma ratio. Radiology 2014;271:30-37 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13131073
  31. Elston CW, 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 2002;41(3A):154-161 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2559.2002.14892.x
  32. Lee SH, Cho N, Kim SJ, Cha JH, Cho KS, Ko ES, et al. Correlation between high resolution dynamic MR features and prognostic factors in breast cancer. Korean J Radiol 2008;9:10-18 https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2008.9.1.10
  33. Lakhani SR, Ellis IO, Schnitt SJ, Tan PH, van de Vijver MJ. WHO classification of Tumours of the breast, 4th ed. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2012:14-31
  34. Padhani AR, Ah-See ML, Taylor NJ. An investigation of histological and DC-MRI correlates of intrinsic susceptibility contrast relaxivity (R2*) in human breast cancer. Berkeley, CA: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 2005:1846
  35. Hendrick RE. Image contrast and noise. In: Stark DD, Bradley WG, eds. Magnetic resonance imaging, 3rd ed. St Louis, MO: Mosby, 1999:43-68
  36. Kawashima M, Tamaki Y, Nonaka T, Higuchi K, Kimura M, Koida T, et al. MR imaging of mucinous carcinoma of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:179-183 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.179.1.1790179
  37. Velasco M, Santamaria G, Ganau S, Farrus B, Zanon G, Romagosa C, et al. MRI of metaplastic carcinoma of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:1274-1278 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.184.4.01841274
  38. Yuen S, Uematsu T, Kasami M, Tanaka K, Kimura K, Sanuki J, et al. Breast carcinomas with strong high-signal intensity on T2-weighted MR images: pathological characteristics and differential diagnosis. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007;25:502-510 https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.20845

Cited by

  1. Identification of Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Features Associated with Positive Resection Margins in Breast Cancer: A Retrospective Study vol.19, pp.5, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2018.19.5.897
  2. Age of Data in Contemporary Research Articles Published in Representative General Radiology Journals vol.19, pp.6, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2018.19.6.1172
  3. A Glimpse on Trends and Characteristics of Recent Articles Published in the Korean Journal of Radiology vol.20, pp.12, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2019.0928
  4. Kinetic Features of Invasive Breast Cancers on Computer-Aided Diagnosis Using 3T MRI Data: Correlation with Clinical and Pathologic Prognostic Factors vol.20, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2018.0587
  5. How clinical imaging can assess cancer biology vol.10, pp.None, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-019-0703-0
  6. Analysis of different phase unwrapping methods to optimize quantitative susceptibility mapping in the abdomen vol.82, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.27891
  7. Characteristics of Recent Articles Published in the Korean Journal of Radiology Based on the Citation Frequency vol.21, pp.12, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2020.1322
  8. Spiral blurring correction with water–fat separation for magnetic resonance fingerprinting in the breast vol.83, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.27994
  9. Utility of synthetic MRI in predicting the Ki-67 status of oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: a feasibility study vol.75, pp.5, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2019.12.021
  10. The diagnostic performance of quantitative mapping in breast cancer patients: a preliminary study using synthetic MRI vol.20, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-020-00365-4
  11. Multiparameter MRI Model With DCE-MRI, DWI, and Synthetic MRI Improves the Diagnostic Performance of BI-RADS 4 Lesions vol.11, pp.None, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.699127
  12. Confounding factors in breast magnetic resonance fingerprinting: B1+, slice profile, and diffusion effects vol.85, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.28545