MRI表观扩散系数诊断导管原位癌与浸润性导管癌的临床意义

Abstract
Figure/Table
References (20)
Related Citation (15)

Download: PDF (0 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Objective: To explore the relationship between ADC parameters and the traditional diagnosis indexes of ductal carcinoma in situ(DCIS) and invasive breast cancer(IBC), and to evaluate the ADC for the diagnosis of DCIS and IBC. Methods: One hundred and eighteen female with breast mass were involved from May 2015 to April 2016 and their baseline information, ADC, elastography score, serum CA125, CA153 and CEA were recorded after admission. According to pathological findings, patients were divided into disease group and control group. Single factor analysis was used to show the factors affecting the diagnosis of DCIS and IBC, and then Logistic proportional hazard regression model analysis was applied to evaluate the influencing degree of those factors on the diagnosis of DCIS and IBC patients. Pearson analysis was used to study relationship between the ADC value and the traditional diagnostic index of elastography score. Meanwhile, the difference of the selected factors from multivariate analysis of two groups was analyzed and the sensitivity and specificity of the factors in diagnosis of DCIS and IBC were calculated by ROC curves. Results: The results of single factor analysis revealed that the diagnosis of DCIS and IBC was affected by ADC, elastography score, serum CA125, CA153, CEA level, and ADC parameters is the most influential(OR=2.273, 95%CI: 1.861～2.776, P=0.002). Pearson correlation analysis showed that the ADC and the traditional elastography score are positively correlated(r=0.475, P=0.000). The ROC analysis showed that the AUC of ADC parameters was 0.788(95%CI: 0.677～0.899) and the sensitivity and specificity were 0.784, 0.732, respectively. Conclusion: ADC parameters may be used as a good diagnostic tool for DCIS and IBC, which is hoped to be used as an early indicator.

Key words： Breast neoplasms Carcinoma, ductal Magnetic resonance imaging Ultrasonography, Doppler, color

Received: 29 August 2017

PACS:	Ｒ737.9
	Ｒ445.2
	Ｒ445.1

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	XIANG Xu1
	YIN Jie1
	LYU Guo-yi1
	LI Jian-ling1
	YOU Guo-qing1
	ZENG Yue-can2

Cite this article:

XIANG Xu1,YIN Jie1,LYU Guo-yi1, et al. Clinical significance of ADC in the diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer[J]. JOURNAL OF CHINA MEDICAL IMAGING, 2018, 29(6): 400-403.

URL:

http://www.jccmi.com.cn/EN/ OR http://www.jccmi.com.cn/EN/Y2018/V29/I6/400

[1]韩露. 单纯乳腺导管原位癌（DCIS）MRI特征与HER2表达及病理核分级的相关性研究[D]. 沈阳：中国医科大学，2015.
[2]Zhao J, Guan H, Li M, et al. Significance of the ADC ratio in the differential diagnosis of breast lesions[J]. Acta Radiol, 2016, 57(4): 422-429.
[3]Bickel H, Pinkerdomenig K, Bogner W, et al. Quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient as a noninvasive imaging biomarker for the differentiation of invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ[J]. Invest Radiol, 2015, 50(2): 95-100.
[4]贾红霞. 乳腺MRI与乳腺X线诊断导管原位癌的临床效果[J]. 中国实用医药，2016，11（10）：67-68.
[5]Cox J, Hancock H, Spratt J, et al. British society of breast radiology annual scientific meeting 2014[J]. Breast Cancer Research Bcr, 2015, 17(Suppl 1): 1.
[6]Ding JR, Wang DN, Pan JL. Apparent diffusion coefficient value of diffusion-weighted imaging for differential diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ and infiltrating ductal carcinoma[J]. J Cancer Res Ther, 2016, 12(2): 744-750.
[7]Fan X, Macleod K, Mustafi D, et al. Correlation of In Vivo and Ex Vivo ADC and T2 of In Situ and Invasive Murine Mammary Cancers[J]. PLoS One, 2015, 10(7): e0129212.
[8]Jha AK, Rodríguez JJ, Stopeck AT. A maximum-likelihood method to estimate a single ADC value of lesions using diffusion MRI[J]. Magn Reson Med, 2016, 76(6): 1919-1931.
[9]Lee CW, Wu HK, Lai HW, et al. Preoperative clinicopathologic factors and breast magnetic resonance imaging features can predict ductal carcinoma in situ with invasive components[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2016, 85(4): 780-789.
[10]张敏，董光，聂家秋，等. 动态增强MRI及DWI对乳腺导管原位癌和腺病的诊断[J]. 临床放射学杂志，2017，36（12）：1759-1762.
[11]王占秋，李京龙, 黄松涛, 等. 乳腺MRI与乳腺X线在导管原位癌临床诊断中应用的比较研究 [J]. 现代生物医学进展，2016，16（6）：1089-1091.
[12]Richa B, Viral S, Bharat A. Qualitative and quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging of the breast at 3T—A useful adjunct to contrast-enhanced MRI in characterization of breast lesions[J]. Indian J Radiol Imaging, 2015, 25(4): 397-403.
[13]吴洁莹. 钼靶X线联合MRI诊断乳腺导管原位癌的相关分析[J]. 临床医学，2015，35（2）：34-35.
[14]Santamaría G, Bargalló X, Fernández PL, et al. Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy in Breast Cancer: Association of Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging Findings, Diffusion-weighted Imaging Findings, and Tumor Subtype with Tumor Response[J]. Radiology, 2017, 283(3): 663-672.
[15]Si L, Zhai R, Liu X, et al. MRI in the differential diagnosis of primary architectural distortion detected by mammography[J]. Diagn Interv Radiol, 2016, 22(2): 141-150.
[16]薛春升. 乳腺导管原位癌及微浸润的MRI影像学表现[J]. 深圳中西医结合杂志，2015，25（16）：75-76.
[17]张惠锋，杨慧芬，杜芳，等. 乳腺导管原位癌的磁共振特征与病理对照关系[J]. 中国现代医生，2016，54（6）：84-87.
[18]Ma L, Xu X, Zhang M, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of gastric cancer: Correlations of the pharmacokinetic parameters with histological type, Lauren classification, and angiogenesis[J]. Magn Reson Imaging, 2016, 37: 27-32.
[19]Yoon HJ, Kim Y, Kim BS. Intratumoral metabolic heterogeneity predicts invasive components in breast ductal carcinoma in situ[J]. Eur Radiol, 2015, 25(12): 3648-3658.
[20]Wang Y, Zhang X, Cao K, et al. Diffusion-tensor imaging as an adjunct to dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for improved accuracy of differential diagnosis between breast ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast carcinoma[J]. Chin J Cancer Res, 2015, 27(2): 209-217.