+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Positive enhancement integral values in dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of breast carcinoma: ductal carcinoma in situ vs. invasive ductal carcinoma



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): 1363-1367



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

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 055060231

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 24894697

DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.05.006


Related references

Differentiation between ductal carcinoma in situ and mastopathy using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and a model of contrast enhancement. European Journal of Radiology 80(3): 740-743, 2011

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. Chinese Journal of Cancer Research 27(2): 209-217, 2015

Comparison of Kinetic Curve between Gadodiamide Hydrate and Gadobutrol on Breast Dynamic Contrast-enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Invasive Ductal Carcinoma. Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi 74(11): 1313-1318, 2018

T1-Weighted Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (DCE-MRI) to Distinguish Between Concurrent Cholesterol Granuloma and Invasive Ductal Carcinoma of the Breast: A Case Report. American Journal of Case Reports 19: 593-598, 2018

Relationship of breast magnetic resonance imaging to outcome after breast-conservation treatment with radiation for women with early-stage invasive breast carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ. Journal of Clinical Oncology 26(3): 386-391, 2008

Evaluation of time-intensity curves in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and mastopathy obtained using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Magnetic Resonance Imaging 29(1): 99, 2011

Differences and Relationships Between Normal and Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia, Ductal Carcinoma In Situ, and Invasive Ductal Carcinoma Tissues in the Breast Based on Raman Spectroscopy. Applied Spectroscopy 71(2): 300-307, 2017

Invasive ductal carcinoma with coexisting ductal carcinoma in situ (IDC/DCIS) versus pure invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC): a comparison of clinicopathological characteristics, molecular subtypes, and clinical outcomes. Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology 145(7): 1877-1886, 2019

Contrast-enhanced dynamic MR imaging parameters and histological types of invasive ductal carcinoma of breast. Biomedicine and PharmacoTherapy 59(3): 115-121, 2005

Increased breast density correlates with the proliferation-seeking radiotracer (99m)Tc(V)-DMSA uptake in florid epithelial hyperplasia and in mixed ductal carcinoma in situ with invasive ductal carcinoma but not in pure invasive ductal carcinoma or in mild epithelial hyperplasia. Molecular Imaging 10(5): 370-376, 2011

Biologic significance of false-positive magnetic resonance imaging enhancement in the setting of ductal carcinoma in situ. American Journal of Surgery 192(4): 520-524, 2006

Predictive values of BI-RADS(®) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the detection of breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). European Journal of Radiology 85(10): 1701-1707, 2016

Breast density, scintimammographic (99m)Tc(V)DMSA uptake, and calcitonin gene related peptide (CGRP) expression in mixed invasive ductal associated with extensive in situ ductal carcinoma (IDC + DCIS) and pure invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC): correlation with estrogen receptor (ER) status, proliferation index Ki-67, and histological grade. Breast Cancer 18(4): 286-291, 2011

Magnetic resonance imaging versus mammography for diagnosing ductal carcinoma in-situ (DCIS) around invasive breast cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 26(15_Suppl): 1507-1507, 2016

Assessment of grating-based X-ray phase-contrast CT for differentiation of invasive ductal carcinoma and ductal carcinoma in situ in an experimental ex vivo set-up. European Radiology 23(2): 381-387, 2013