Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.13104/jksmrm.2013.17.2.101

Preoperative Prediction of Ductal Carcinoma in situ Underestimation of the Breast using Dynamic Contrast Enhanced and Diffusion-weighted Imaging  

Park, Mina (Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiological Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University, College of Medicine)
Kim, Eun-Kyung (Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiological Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University, College of Medicine)
Kim, Min Jung (Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiological Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University, College of Medicine)
Moon, Hee Jung (Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiological Science, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University, College of Medicine)
Publication Information
Investigative Magnetic Resonance Imaging / v.17, no.2, 2013 , pp. 101-109 More about this Journal
Abstract
Objective: To investigate roles of dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance (DCE MR) and diffusion-weighted (DW) imaging in preoperative prediction of underestimation of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) ${\geq}2cm$ on US guided core needle biopsy. Materials and Methods: Twenty two patients with DCIS on US-guided 14 gauge core needle biopsy were included. Patients were divided into a group with and without DCIS underestimation based on histopathology. MR images including DCE and DW imaging were obtained with a 3.0-T MR. The lesion type (mass or non-mass), enhancement pattern, peak enhancement, and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values of proven malignant masses were generated using software of CADstream and compared between two groups using Fisher's exact test and Mann Whitney test. Results: Eight patients were in the group with underestimation and 14 patients were in the group without underestimation. The lesion type and enhancement pattern were not different between two groups (P values = 1.000 and 0.613, respectively). The median peak enhancement of lesions with underestimation was 159.5%, higher than 133.5% of those without underestimation, but not significant (P value = 0.413). The median ADC value of lesions with underestimation was $1.26{\times}10^{-3}mm^2/sec$, substantially lower than $1.35{\times}10^{-3}mm^2/sec$ of those without underestimation (P value = 0.094). Conclusion: ADC values had the potential to preoperatively predict DCIS underestimation on US-guided core needle biopsy, although a large prospective series study should be conducted to confirm these results.
Keywords
Breast malignancy; Underestimation; Breast core needle biopsy Dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Kuroki-Suzuki S, Kuroki Y, Nasu K, Nawano S, Moriyma N, Okazaki M. Detecting breast cancer with non-contrast MR imaging: combining diffusion-weighted and STIR imaging. Magn Reson Med Sci 2007;6:21-27   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Marini C, Iacconi C, Giannelli M, Cilotti A, Moretti M, Bartolozzi C. Quantitative diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the differential diagnosis of breast lesion. Eur Radiol 2007;17:2646-2655   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Bieling HB, et al. MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study. Lancet 2007;370:485-492   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Liberman L, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, Abramson AF, Tan LK. MR imaging of the ipsilateral breast in women with percutaneously proven breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:901-910   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Gutierrez RL, DeMartini WB, Silbergeld JJ, et al. High cancer yield and positive predictive value: outcomes at a center routinely using preoperative breast MRI for staging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;196:W93-W99   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Houssami N, Ciatto S, Macaskill P, et al. Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:3248-3258   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Pengel KE, Loo CE, Teertstra HJ, et al. The impact of preoperative MRI on breast-conserving surgery of invasive cancer: a comparative cohort study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009;116:161-169   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Rosen EL, Smith-Foley SA, DeMartini WB, Eby PR, Peacock S, Lehman CD. BI-RADS MRI Enhancement characteristics of ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast J 2007;13:545-550   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Jansen SA. Ductal carcinoma in situ: detection, diagnosis, and characterization with magnetic resonance imaging. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2011;32:306-318   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Sakamoto N, Tozaki M, Higa K, et al. Categorization of nonmass- like breast lesions detected by MRI. Breast Cancer 2008;15:241-246   DOI
11 Meeuwis C, Van de Ven SM, Stapper G, et al. Computer-aided detection (CAD) for breast MRI: evaluation of efficacy at 3.0 T. Eur Radiol 2010;20:522-528   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Wang LC, DeMartini WB, Partridge SC, Peacock S, Lehman CD. MRI-detected suspicious breast lesions: predictive values of kinetic features measured by computer-aided evaluation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193:826-831   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Jansen SA, Newstead GM, Abe H, Shimauchi A, Schmidt RA, Karczmar GS. Pure ductal carcinoma in situ: kinetic and morphologic MR characteristics compared with mammographic appearance and nuclear grade. Radiology 2007;245:684-691   DOI   ScienceOn
14 Newell D, Nie K, Chen JH, et al. Selection of diagnostic features on breast MRI to differentiate between malignant and benign lesions using computer-aided diagnosis: differences in lesions presenting as mass and non-mass-like enhancement. Eur Radiol 2010;20:771-781   DOI
15 Woodhams R, Ramadan S, Stanwell P, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of the breast: principles and clinical applications. Radiographics 2011;31:1059-1084   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Kuhl CK, Schild HH. Dynamic image interpretation of MRI of the breast. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000;12:965-974   DOI
17 Van Goethem M, Schelfout K, Kersschot E, et al. Comparison of MRI features of different grades of DCIS and invasive carcinoma of the breast. JBR BTR 2005;88:225-232
18 Chen W, Giger ML, Li H, Bick U, Newstead GM. Volumetric texture analysis of breast lesions on contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance images. Magn Reson Med 2007;58:562-571   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Peters NH, Vincken KL, van den Bosch MA, Luijten PR, Mali WP, Bartels LW. Quantitative diffusion weighted imaging for differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: the influence of the choice of b-values. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010;31:1100-1105   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Rubesova E, Grell AS, De Maertelaer V, Metens T, Chao SL, Lemort M. Quantitative diffusion imaging in breast cancer: a clinical prospective study. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006;24:319-324   DOI   ScienceOn
21 Woodhams R, Matsunaga K, Kan S, et al. ADC mapping of benign and malignant breast tumors. Magn Reson Med Sci 2005;4:35-42   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Iima M, Le Bihan D, Okumura R, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient as an MR imaging biomarker of low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ: a pilot study. Radiology 2011;260:364-372   DOI   ScienceOn
23 Rahbar H, Partridge SC, Eby PR, et al. Characterization of ductal carcinoma in situ on diffusion-weighted breast MRI. Eur Radiol 2011;21:2011-2019   DOI   ScienceOn
24 Partridge SC, Demartini WB, Kurland BF, Eby PR, White SW, Lehman CD. Differential diagnosis of mammographically and clinically occult breast lesions on diffusion-weighted MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010;31:562-570   DOI   ScienceOn
25 Cho N, Moon WK, Chang JM, et al. Sonoelastographic lesion stiffness: preoperative predictor of the presence of an invasive focus in nonpalpable DCIS diagnosed at US-guided needle biopsy. Eur Radiol 2011;21:1618-1627   DOI
26 Lyman GH, Giuliano AE, Somerfield MR, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline recommendations for sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:7703-7720   DOI   ScienceOn
27 Society AC. Breast cancer survival rates by stage. 2012
28 Liberman L. Clinical management issues in percutaneous core breast biopsy. Radiol Clin North Am 2000;38:791-807   DOI   ScienceOn
29 Youk JH, Kim EK, Kwak JY, Son EJ, Park BW, Kim SI. Benign papilloma without atypia diagnosed at US-guided 14-gauge core-needle biopsy: clinical and US features predictive of upgrade to malignancy. Radiology 2011;258:81-88   DOI   ScienceOn
30 O'Flynn EA, Wilson AR, Michell MJ. Image-guided breast biopsy: state-of-the-art. Clin Radiol 2010;65:259-270   DOI   ScienceOn
31 Helbich TH, Matzek W, Fuchsjager MH. Stereotactic and ultrasound-guided breast biopsy. Eur Radiol 2004;14:383-393   DOI
32 Sauer G, Deissler H, Strunz K, et al. Ultrasound-guided largecore needle biopsies of breast lesions: analysis of 962 cases to determine the number of samples for reliable tumour classification. Br J Cancer 2004;92:231-235
33 Schoonjans JM, Brem RF. Fourteen-gauge ultrasonographically guided large-core needle biopsy of breast masses. J Ultrasound Med 2001;20:967-972   DOI
34 Smith DN, Rosenfield Darling ML, Meyer JE, et al. The utility of ultrasonographically guided large-core needle biopsy: results from 500 consecutive breast biopsies. J Ultrasound Med 2001;20:43-49   DOI
35 Suh Y, Kim M, Kim E, et al. Comparison of the underestimation rate in cases with ductal carcinoma in situ at ultrasound-guided core biopsy: 14-gauge automated core-needle biopsy vs 8-or 11- gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy. Br J Radiol 2012;85:e349-e356   DOI   ScienceOn
36 Verkooijen HM, Peeters PH, Buskens E, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of large-core needle biopsy for nonpalpable breast disease: a meta-analysis. Br J Cancer 2000;82:1017-1021   DOI   ScienceOn
37 Bhooshan N, Giger ML, Jansen SA, Li H, Lan L, Newstead GM. Cancerous breast lesions on dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images: computerized characterization for image-based prognostic markers. Radiology 2010;254:680-690   DOI   ScienceOn
38 Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 7th ed. Chicago, IL: Springer,2009.
39 Moon M, Cornfeld D, Weinreb J. Dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2009;17:351-362   DOI   ScienceOn
40 Lehman CD, Peacock S, DeMartini WB, Chen X. A new automated software system to evaluate breast MR examinations: improved specificity without decreased sensitivity. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;187:51-56   DOI   ScienceOn
41 Schueller G, Jaromi S, Ponhold L, et al. US-guided 14-gauge core-needle breast biopsy: results of a validation study in 1352 cases. Radiology 2008;248:406   DOI   ScienceOn