Share：
Share this content in WeChat
X
[Chinese][PDF]987121
• Health for all, Prosperity for all •
Value of contrast enhanced energy spectrum mammography, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI combined with DWI to evaluate different molecular typing of breast cancer
GONG Junfeng  LI Xiaoyan  WANG Yongjie 

Cite this article as: Gong JF, Li XY, Wang YJ. Value of contrast enhanced energy spectrum mammography, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI combined with DWI to evaluate different molecular typing of breast cancer. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2020, 11(12): 1170-1173. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2020.12.020.


[Abstract] Objective: To investigate value of the contrast enhanced energy spectrum mammography (CESM), dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) and diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI-MRI) to evaluate different molecular typing of breast cancer.Materials and Methods: One hundred and sixty-two patients with breast cancer in our hospital from January 2017 to February 2020 were enrolled, and divided into four groups according to the results of molecular typing, Luminal A group (n=41), Luminal B group (n=69), Her-2 overexpression group (n=32), and triple negative group (n=20). All patients received CESM, DCE-MRI, and DWI-MRI examinations. The characteristics of CESM images, wash in rate (WIR), maximum enhancement (ME), time to peak (TTP) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) were compared among four groups. Spearman correlation analysis was used to analyze the correlation between CESM image characteristics and breast cancer molecular typing, and receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) was used to analyze predictive value of MRI parameters on the breast cancer molecular typing.Results: The calcification characteristics had significant difference among four groups (P> 0.05), while significant difference was found in mass diameter, mass morphology, mass boundary, enhancement, features of axillary lymph node enlargement and ME, TTP, WIR and ADC among four groups (P<0.05). There was no correlation between calcification and breast cancer molecular typing (P>0.05), while the tumor diameter, tumor morphology, tumor boundary, enhancement, axillary lymphadenopathy had significant correlation with breast cancer molecular typing (P<0.05); the AUC, accuracy and cut-off value of WIR combined ADC in the prediction of triple negative breast cancer were 0.898 (95% CI: 0.846—0.950), 82.65%, and 0.653. The AUC, accuracy and cut-off value of ME in the prediction of Luminal B breast cancer were 0.678 (95% CI: 0.591—0.765), 72.10%, and 0.442. The AUC, accuracy and cut-off value of TTP in the prediction of Her-2 overexpressed breast cancer were 0.773 (95% CI: 0.691—0.855), 73.45%, and 0.469.Conclusions: Value of CESM, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI combined with DWI has certain guiding significance in the judgment of breast cancer molecular typing, and is expected to be applied in the prediction of breast cancer molecular typing.
[Keywords] mammography；magnetic resonance imaging；contrast enhancement；dynamic enhancement；diffusion weighting imaging；breast cancer；molecular typing；evaluation value

GONG Junfeng Department of Imaging, Xinhua Hospital (Chongming) Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 202150, China

LI Xiaoyan Department of Imaging, Xinhua Hospital (Chongming) Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 202150, China

WANG Yongjie* Department of Imaging, Xinhua Hospital (Chongming) Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 202150, China

*Correspondence to: Wang YJ, E-mail: wangyongjie1977@163.com

Conflicts of interest   None.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS  This work was part of Xinhua Hospital (Chongming) Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine Fund Project No.2019YA11
Received  2020-06-29
Accepted  2020-11-10
DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2020.12.020
Cite this article as: Gong JF, Li XY, Wang YJ. Value of contrast enhanced energy spectrum mammography, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI combined with DWI to evaluate different molecular typing of breast cancer. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2020, 11(12): 1170-1173. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2020.12.020.

[1]
Duffy MJ, Catherine D, Mulcahy HE, et al. Urokinase plasminogen activator: a prognostic marker in breast cancer including patients with axillary node-negative disease. Clin Chem, 2020, 14(6): 6-10. DOI: 10.1093/clinchem/44.6.1177.
[2]
黄亮亮，吕俊远，唐应麒,等.乳腺癌分子分型与临床病理特征的相关性研究.重庆医学, 2019, 48(10): 1701-1704. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-8348.2019.10.019.
[3]
孙向洁，杨文涛.免疫组织化学在乳腺癌分子分型中的作用及目前存在的问题.中国癌症杂志, 2019, 29(3): 161-165. DOI: 10.19401/j.cnki.1007-3639.2019.03.001.
[4]
文洁，康文焱，刘周,等.磁共振动态增强成像联合扩散加权成像对乳腺良恶性疾病鉴别诊断价值.磁共振成像, 2020, 11(4): 304-307. DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2020.04.013.
[5]
唐晓雯，赵玉年，庄姗,等. DWI-MRI联合X线钼靶对乳腺疾病的诊断价值研究.中国临床医学影像杂志, 2019, 30(8): 548-552. DOI: 10.12117/jccmi.2019.08.005.
[6]
曲玉虹，陈倩倩，曹崑.对比增强能谱乳腺X线摄影的临床应用及进展.中国医学影像技术, 2019, 35(4): 511-514. DOI: CNKI:SUN:ZYXX.0.2019-04-011.
[7]
Chan DW, Beveridge RA, Bruzek DJ, et al. Monitoring breast cancer with CA 549. Clin Chem, 2019, 2(10): 1012-1015. DOI: 10.1016/S0009-9120(88)80090-0.
[8]
Amir Q, Jennifer SL, Reem AM, et al. Screening for breast cancer in average-risk women: A guidance statement from the American college of physicians. Ann Intern Med, 2019, 2(5): 563-565. DOI: 10.7326/M18-2147.
[9]
解礼冰，田兴仓，马丽,等. DCE-MRI诊断肺癌和肺部不同类型良性肿块的价值.磁共振成像, 2018, 9(3): 192-196. DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2018.03.006.
[10]
Li JL, Lu L, Danke SU, et al. (18)F-FDG PET/CT Versus DWI-MRI in detecting residue or recurrence of nasopharyngeal carcinoma after radiotherapy: a Meta analysis. Chongqing Med, 2019, 4(7): 589-593.
[11]
Maha HH, Sahar MM, Lamia AS, et al. The impact of contrast enhanced spectral mammogram (CESM) and three dimensional breast ultrasound (3DUS) on the characterization of the disease extend in cancer patients. Br J Radiol, 2018, 2(6): 462-464. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20170977.
[12]
James JJ, Tennant SL. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM). Clin Radiol, 2018, 2(7): 562-564. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2018.05.005.
[13]
Rudnicki W, Heinze S, Niemiec J, et al. Correlation between quantitative assessment of contrast enhancement in contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and histopathology-preliminary results. Eur Radiol, 2019, 3(5): 1555-1557. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-019-06232-6.
[14]
Miller MM, Kathy R, Patrie JT, et al. Preferences and attitudes regarding adjunct breast cancer screening among patients with dense breasts. J Breast Imaging, 2018, 2(6): 5263-5264. DOI: 10.1093/jbi/wbz093.
[15]
Helal MH, Salem DS, Salaleldin LA, et al. The impact of contrast enhanced spectral mammogram (CESM) and three dimensional breast ultrasound (3DUS) on the characterization of the disease extend in cancer patients. Br J Radiol, 2018, 7(17): 902-906. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20170977.

PREV Comparison of the clinical value of MRI and CT in the diagnosis of nasopharyngeal carcinoma
NEXT The differential diagnosis of benign and malignant breast tumors with MRI quantitative and semi-quantitative parameters and the correlation analysis with biological indicators of breast cancer
  


LINK


Tel & Fax: +8610-67113815    E-mail: editor@cjmri.cn