Dergiler / European Journal of Breast Health / 2019 / Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 4

Diffusion-Weighted Imaging of Breast Cancer: Correlation of the Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Value with Pathologic Prognostic Factors

Sayfa
262–267
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Especially,ADC values were valuable in predicting NG subgroups.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objective: Th aim was to evaluate relationship between apparent diffsion coeffient (ADC) values with pathologic prognostic factors in breastcarcinoma (BC).Materials and Methods: 83 patients were enrolled in this study.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Prognostic factors included age, tumor size, expression of estrogen receptor (ER)and progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), nuclear grade (NG), lymph node involvement and histologictype.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Especially,ADC values were valuable in predicting NG subgroups.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Objective: Th aim was to evaluate relationship between apparent diffsion coeffient (ADC) values with pathologic prognostic factors in breastcarcinoma (BC).Materials and Methods: 83 patients were enrolled in this study. Prognostic factors included age, tumor size, expression of estrogen receptor (ER)and progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), nuclear grade (NG), lymph node involvement and histologictype. Th relationship between ADC and prognostic factors was determined using Independent sample t-test, ANOVA, Pearson correlation and relativeoperating characteristics (ROC) analysis.Results: Thre was no signifiant diffrence between ADC and prognostic factors, including age, tumor size, ER, HER2 and histologic type. Th PRpositive tumors (p=0.03) and axillary lymph node involvement (p=0.000) showed a signifiant association with lower ADC values. Th ADC values weresignifiantly lower in high-grade tumors than low-grade tumors (p=0.000). ROC analysis showed an optimal ADC threshold of 0.66 (×10-3 mm2/s) fordiffrentiating low-grade tumors from high-grade tumors (sensitivity, 85.5%; specifiity, 81%; area under curve, 0.90).Conclusion: Th lower ADC values of BC were signifiantly associated with positive expression of PR, LN positivity and high-grade tumor. Especially,ADC values were valuable in predicting NG subgroups.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

TEZCANER, T., TEZCAN, Ş., USLU, N., AKÇAY, E. Y., ÖZTÜRK, F. U. (2022). Diffusion-Weighted Imaging of Breast Cancer: Correlation of the Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Value with Pathologic Prognostic Factors. European Journal of Breast Health, Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 4, 262–267. https://ajindex.com/articles/510812

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (1)

  1. Meng L, Ma P. Apparent diffsion coeffient value measurements with diffsion magnetic resonance imaging correlated with the expression levels of estrogen and progesterone receptor in breast cancer: A meta-analysis. J Cancer Res Thr 2016; 12: 36-42. (PMID: 27072207) [CrossRef] 2. Park EK, Cho KR, Seo BK, Woo OH, Cho SB, Bae JW. Additional Value of Diffsion-Weighted Imaging to Evaluate Prognostic Factors of Breast Cancer: Correlation with the Apparent Diffsion Coeffient. Iran J Radiol 2016; 13: e33133. (PMID: 27127582) [CrossRef] 3. Henry NL, Hayes DF. Uses and abuses of tumor markers in the diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of primary and metastatic breast cancer. Oncologist 2006; 11: 541-552. (PMID: 16794234) [CrossRef] 4. Ozmen V, Muslumanoglu M, Cabioglu N, Tuzlali S, Ilhan R, Igci A, Kecer M, Bozfakioglu Y, Dagoglu T. Increased false negative rates in sentinel lymph node biopsies in patients with multi-focal breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2002; 76: 237-244. (PMID: 12462384) [CrossRef] 5. Chowdhury N, Pai MR, Lobo FD, Kini H, Varghese R. Interobserver variation in breast cancer grading: a statistical modeling approach. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 2006; 28: 213-218. (PMID: 16927641) 6. Woodhams R, Ramadan S, Stanwell P, Sakamoto S, Hata H, Ozaki M, Kan S, Inoue Y. Diffsion-weighted Imaging of the Breast: Principles and Clinical Applications. Radiographics 2011; 31: 1059-1084. (PMID: 21768239) [CrossRef] 7. Shin HJ, Kim HH, Shin KC, Sung YS, Cha JH, Lee JW, Son BH, Ahn SH. Prediction of low-risk breast cancer using perfusion parameters and apparent diffsion coeffient. Magn Reson Imaging 2016; 34: 67-74. (PMID: 26523654) [CrossRef] 8. Costantini M, Belli P, Distefano D, Buf E, Matteo MD, Rinaldi P, Giuliani M, Petrone G, Magno S, Bonomo L. Magnetic resonance imaging features in triple-negative breast cancer: comparison with luminal and HER2-overexpressing tumors. Clin Breast Cancer 2012; 12: 331-339. (PMID: 23040001) [CrossRef] 9. Martincich L, Deantoni V, Bertotto I, Redana S, Kubatzki F, Sarotto I, Rossi V, Liotti M, Ponzone R, Aglietta M, Regge D, Montemurro F. Correlations between diffsion-weighted imaging and breast cancer biomarkers. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 1519-1528. (PMID: 22411304) [CrossRef] 10. Jeh SK, Kim SH, Kim HS, Kang BJ, Jeong SH, Yim HW, Song BJ. Correlation of the apparent diffsion coeffient value and dynamic magnetic resonance imaging fidings with prognostic factors in invasive ductal carcinoma. J Magn Reson Imaging 2011; 33: 102-10