Risk stratification of ductal carcinoma in situ using whole-lesion histogram analysis of the apparent diffusion coefficient
- 297 Downloads
To investigate the value of the whole-lesion histogram apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) metrics for differentiating low-risk from non-low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).
The authors identified 93 women with pure DCIS who had undergone preoperative MR imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging from 2013 to 2016. Histogram analysis of pixel-based ADC data of the whole tumour volume was performed by two radiologists using a software tool. The results were compared between low-risk and non-low-risk DCIS. Associations between quantitative ADC metrics and low-risk DCIS were evaluated by receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve and logistic regression analyses.
In whole-lesion histogram analysis, mean ADC and 5th, 50th and 95th percentiles of ADC were significantly different between low-risk and non-low-risk DCIS (1.522, 1.207, 1.536 and 1.854 × 10−3 mm2/s versus 1.270, 0.917, 1.261 and 1.657 × 10−3 mm2/s, respectively; p = .004, p = .003, p = .004 and p = .024, respectively). ROC curve analysis for differentiating low-risk DCIS revealed that 5th percentile ADC yielded the largest area under the curve (0.786) among the metrics of whole-lesion histogram, and the optimal cut-off point was 1.078 × 10−3 mm2/s (sensitivity 80%, specificity 75.9%, p = .001). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that a high 5th percentile of ADC (> 1.078× 10−3 mm2/s; odds ratio [OR] = 10.494, p = .016), small tumour size (≤ 2 cm; OR = 12.692, p = .008) and low Ki-67 status (< 14%; OR = 10.879, p = .046) were significantly associated with low-risk DCIS.
Assessment with whole-lesion histogram analysis of the ADC could be helpful for identifying patients with low-risk DCIS.
• Whole-lesion histogram ADC metrics could be helpful for differentiating low-risk from non-low-risk DCIS.
• A high 5th percentile ADC was a significant factor associated with low-risk DCIS.
• Risk stratification of DCIS is important for their management.
KeywordsBreast neoplasm Magnetic resonance imaging Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging Ductal carcinoma in situ Risk
Apparent diffusion coefficient
Area under the curve
Ductal carcinoma in situ
Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2
Intraclass correlation coefficient
Receiver operating characteristic
Regions of interest
This work was based on the Multi Parametric Analysis works-in-progress software package provided by Siemens Healthineers.
This study was presented at the 2017 RSNA Scientific Assembly.
The authors state that this work has not received any funding.
Compliance with ethical standards
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Jin You Kim.
Conflict of interest
The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.
Statistics and biometry
No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.
Written informed consent was waived by the institutional review board.
Institutional review board approval was obtained.
• performed at one institution
- 1.Lippman M (2002) Why study ductal carcinoma in situ. In: Silverstein MJ, Recht A, Lagios MD (eds) Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast, 2nd edn. Lippincott William and Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 12–16Google Scholar
- 15.Allred DC, Harvey JM, Berardo M, Clark GM (1998) Prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer by immunohistochemical analysis. Mod Pathol 11:155–168Google Scholar
- 16.Moeder CB, Giltnane JM, Harigopal M et al (2007) Quantitative justification of the change from 10% to 30% for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 scoring in the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guidelines: tumor heterogeneity in breast cancer and its implications for tissue microarray–based assessment of outcome. J Clin Oncol 25:5418–5425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Matsumoto Y, Kuroda M, Matsuya R et al (2009) In vitro experimental study of the relationship between the apparent diffusion coefficient and changes in cellularity and cell morphology. Oncol Rep 22:641–648Google Scholar
- 35.Chan S, Chen JH, Agrawal G et al (2010) Characterisation of pure ductal carcinoma in situ on dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging: do nonhigh grade and high grade show different imaging features? J Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/431341