Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Positive enhancement integral values in dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of breast carcinoma: ductal carcinoma in situ vs. invasive ductal carcinoma.
Eur J Radiol. 2014 Aug; 83(8):1363-7.EJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to contribute to the standardization of the numeric positive enhancement integral (PEI) values in breast parenchyma, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) and to evaluate the significance of the difference in PEI values between IDC and parenchyma, DCIS and parenchyma and IDC and DCIS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In the prospective trial, we analyzed the dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) of 60 consecutive patients with histologically confirmed unilateral DCIS (n=30) and IDC (n=30) and defined the PEI values (range; mean ± SD) for the lesions and the breast parenchyma. Tumor-to-non-tumor (T/NT) ratios were calculated for DCIS and IDC and compared. PEI color maps (PEICM) were created. The differences in PEI values between IDC and parenchyma and between DCIS and parenchyma were tested according to t-test. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the differences between the mean PEI values of parenchyma, DCIS and IDC.

RESULTS

IDC showed highly statistically different PEI numeric values compared to breast parenchyma (748.7 ± 32.2 vs. 74.6 ± 17.0; p<0.0001). The same applied to the differences in the group of patients with DCIS (428.0 ± 25.0 vs. 66.0 ± 10.6; p<0.0001). The difference between IDC, DCIS and parenchyma were also considered highly statistically significant (p<0.0001) and so were the T/NT ratios for IDC and DCIS (10.1 ± 2.4 vs. 6.6 ± 1.4; p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

PEI numeric values may contribute to differentiation between invasive and in situ breast carcinoma.

Links

Publisher Full Text
Aggregator Full Text

Authors+Show Affiliations

Nadrljanski M
Clinic for Radiology and Radiation Oncology, Institute of Oncology and Radiology of Serbia, Pasterova 14, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia. Electronic address: dr.m.nadrljanski@gmail.com.
Maksimović R
Center for Radiology and Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Clinical Center of Serbia, Pasterova 2, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia; Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Dr Subotića 8, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia.
Plešinac-Karapandžić V
Clinic for Radiology and Radiation Oncology, Institute of Oncology and Radiology of Serbia, Pasterova 14, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia; Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Dr Subotića 8, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia.
Nikitović M
Clinic for Radiology and Radiation Oncology, Institute of Oncology and Radiology of Serbia, Pasterova 14, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia; Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Dr Subotića 8, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia.
Marković-Vasiljković B
Center for Radiology and Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Clinical Center of Serbia, Pasterova 2, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia; Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Dr Subotića 8, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia.
Milošević Z
Clinic for Radiology and Radiation Oncology, Institute of Oncology and Radiology of Serbia, Pasterova 14, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia; Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Dr Subotića 8, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia.

MeSH

Breast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingContrast MediaFemaleGadolinium DTPAHumansImage EnhancementMagnetic Resonance ImagingMammographyMiddle AgedProspective Studies

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

24894697

Citation

Nadrljanski, Mirjan, et al. "Positive Enhancement Integral Values in Dynamic Contrast Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Breast Carcinoma: Ductal Carcinoma in Situ Vs. Invasive Ductal Carcinoma." European Journal of Radiology, vol. 83, no. 8, 2014, pp. 1363-7.
Nadrljanski M, Maksimović R, Plešinac-Karapandžić V, et al. Positive enhancement integral values in dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of breast carcinoma: ductal carcinoma in situ vs. invasive ductal carcinoma. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83(8):1363-7.
Nadrljanski, M., Maksimović, R., Plešinac-Karapandžić, V., Nikitović, M., Marković-Vasiljković, B., & Milošević, Z. (2014). Positive enhancement integral values in dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of breast carcinoma: ductal carcinoma in situ vs. invasive ductal carcinoma. European Journal of Radiology, 83(8), 1363-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.05.006
Nadrljanski M, et al. Positive Enhancement Integral Values in Dynamic Contrast Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Breast Carcinoma: Ductal Carcinoma in Situ Vs. Invasive Ductal Carcinoma. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83(8):1363-7. PubMed PMID: 24894697.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Positive enhancement integral values in dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of breast carcinoma: ductal carcinoma in situ vs. invasive ductal carcinoma. AU - Nadrljanski,Mirjan, AU - Maksimović,Ružica, AU - Plešinac-Karapandžić,Vesna, AU - Nikitović,Marina, AU - Marković-Vasiljković,Biljana, AU - Milošević,Zorica, Y1 - 2014/05/16/ PY - 2013/10/03/received PY - 2014/04/16/revised PY - 2014/05/02/accepted PY - 2014/6/5/entrez PY - 2014/6/5/pubmed PY - 2015/3/31/medline KW - Breast KW - Breast neoplasms KW - Carcinoma KW - Ductal KW - Intraductal KW - Invasive KW - Magnetic resonance imaging KW - Noninfiltrating SP - 1363 EP - 7 JF - European journal of radiology JO - Eur J Radiol VL - 83 IS - 8 N2 - OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to contribute to the standardization of the numeric positive enhancement integral (PEI) values in breast parenchyma, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) and to evaluate the significance of the difference in PEI values between IDC and parenchyma, DCIS and parenchyma and IDC and DCIS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the prospective trial, we analyzed the dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) of 60 consecutive patients with histologically confirmed unilateral DCIS (n=30) and IDC (n=30) and defined the PEI values (range; mean ± SD) for the lesions and the breast parenchyma. Tumor-to-non-tumor (T/NT) ratios were calculated for DCIS and IDC and compared. PEI color maps (PEICM) were created. The differences in PEI values between IDC and parenchyma and between DCIS and parenchyma were tested according to t-test. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the differences between the mean PEI values of parenchyma, DCIS and IDC. RESULTS: IDC showed highly statistically different PEI numeric values compared to breast parenchyma (748.7 ± 32.2 vs. 74.6 ± 17.0; p<0.0001). The same applied to the differences in the group of patients with DCIS (428.0 ± 25.0 vs. 66.0 ± 10.6; p<0.0001). The difference between IDC, DCIS and parenchyma were also considered highly statistically significant (p<0.0001) and so were the T/NT ratios for IDC and DCIS (10.1 ± 2.4 vs. 6.6 ± 1.4; p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: PEI numeric values may contribute to differentiation between invasive and in situ breast carcinoma. SN - 1872-7727 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/24894697/Positive_enhancement_integral_values_in_dynamic_contrast_enhanced_magnetic_resonance_imaging_of_breast_carcinoma:_ductal_carcinoma_in_situ_vs__invasive_ductal_carcinoma_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0720-048X(14)00242-3 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -