Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dynamic-enhanced MRI predicts metastatic potential of invasive ductal breast cancer

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has improved the detection of breast malignancies. The method is based on estimating the velocity of contrast enhancement taking into account increased angiogenesis in tumor. Microvessel density correlates with breast carcinoma metastasis. Thus, we hypothesized that contrast enhancement on MRI correlates with metastasis in breast cancer patients. The present study attempts to clarify the quantitative assessment of dynamic data, and examines the correlation between MRI enhancement and breast carcinoma metastasis.

Methods

The subjects consisted of 31 patients with invasive ductal breast cancer. Twenty patients were disease free for five years (group A), and eleven patients suffered from metastatic disease at distant sites concurrently or postoperatively (group B). Dynamic MRI was performed preoperatively using a 1.5T system in all cases. Using the dynamic data, the signal intensity (SI) ratio and SI index were determined and analyzed retrospectively taking into account the presence of distant metastases.

Results

The values of the SI ratio were 2.2 ± 0.7 in group A and 2.3 ± 0.4 in group B, respectively, with no significant difference seen between the groups. The SI index value was significantly higher in group B (28.5 ± 32.8) than in group A (10.3 ± 5.5,p < 0.05).

Conclusions

The current series suggests that the SI index could distinguish patients with high risk of distant metastasis from disease free patients, preoperatively. If a suitable borderline value were established, the quantitative dynamic parameter determined by MRI may be useful for predicting the prognosis of breast cancer patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

SI:

Signal intensity

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

SE:

Spin echo

FOV:

Field of view

SPGR:

Spoiled gradient echo

Gd-DTPA:

Gadolinium-diethylene triamine pentaacetic acid

ROI:

Region of interest

References

  1. Mussurakis S, Buckley DL, Coady AM, Turnbull LW, and Horsman A: Observer variability in the interpretation of contrast enhanced MRI of the breast.Br J Radiol 69: 1009–1016, 1996.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Harms SE, Flamig DP, Hesley KL, Meiches MD, Jensen RA, Evans WP, Savino DA, and Wells RV: MR imaging of the breast with rotating delivery of excitation off resonance: clinical experience with pathologic correlation.Radiology 187: 493–501, 1993.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Orel SG, Schnall MD, Powell CM, Hochman MG, Solin LJ, Fowble BL, Torosian MH, and Rosato EF: Staging of suspected breast cancer: effect of MR imaging and MR-guided biopsy.Radiology 196: 115–122, 1995.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Piccoli CW: Contrast-enhanced breast MRI: factors affecting sensitivity and specificity.Eur Radiol 7 (Suppl5): 281–288, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Buadu LD, Murakami J, Murayama S, Hashiguchi N, Sakai S, Masuda K, Toyoshima S, Kuroki S, and Ohno S: Breast lesions: correlation of contrast medium enhancement patterns on MR images with histopathologic findings and tumor angiogenesis.Radiology 200: 639–649, 1996.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Liney GP, Gibbs P, Hayes C, Leach MO, and Turnbull LW: Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in the differentiation of breast tumors: user-defined versus semiautomated region-of-interest analysis.J Magn Reson Imaging 10: 945–949, 1999.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Stamper PC, Herman S, Klippenstein DL, Winston JS, Edge SB, Arredondo MA, Mazurchuk RV, and Blumenson LE: Suspect breast lesions: findings at dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging correlated with mammographic and pathologic features.Radiology 197: 387–395, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Schorn C, Fischer U, Luftner-Nagel S, and Grabbe E: Diagnostic potential of ultrafast contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast in hypervascularized lesions: are there advantages in comparison with standard dynamic MRI?J Comput Assist Tomogr 23: 118–122, 1999.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Heywang-Kobrunner SH: Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breast.Invest Radiol 29: 94–104, 1994.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Furman-Haran E, Margalit R, Grobgeld D, and Degani H: Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging reveals stress-induced angiogenesis in MCF7 human breast tumors.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93: 6247–6251, 1996.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Degani H, Furman E, and Fields S: Magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy of MCF7 human breast cancer: pathophysiology and monitoring of treatment.Clin Chim Acta 228: 19–33, 1994.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Stack JP, Redmond OM, Codd MB, Dervan PA, and Ennis JT: Breast disease: tissue characterization with Gd-DTPA enhancement profiles.Radiology 174: 491–494, 1990.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Boetes C, Barentsz JO, Mus RD, van der Sluis RF, van Erning LJ, Hendriks JH, Holland R, and Ruys SH: MR characterization of suspicious breast lesions with a gadolinium-enhanced TurboFLASH subtraction technique.Radiology 193: 777–781, 1994.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kerslake RW, Carleton PJ, Fox JN, Imrie MJ, Cook AM, Read JR, Bowsley SJ, Buckley DH, and Horsman A: Dynamic gradient-echo and fat-suppressed spinecho contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast.Clin Radiol 50: 440–454, 1995.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Weinreb JC, and Newstead G: MR imaging of the breast.Radiology 196: 593–610, 1995.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Weidner N, Semple JP, Welch WR, and Folkman J: Tumor angiogenesis and metastasis — correlation in invasive breast carcinoma.N Engl J Med 324: 1–8, 1991.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Horak ER, Leek R, Klenk N, Lejeune S, Smith K, Stuart N, Greenall M, Stepniewska K, and Harris AL: Angiogenesis, assessed by platelet/endothelial cell adhesion molecule antibodies, as indicator of node metastases and survival in breast cancer.Lancet 340: 1120–1124, 1992.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Liotta LA, Kleinerman J, and Saidel GM: Quantitative relationships of intravascular tumor cells, tumor vessels, and pulmonary metastases following tumor implantation.Cancer Res 34: 997–1004, 1974.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bosari S, Lee AK, DeLellis RA, Wiley BD, Heatley GJ, and Silverman ML: Microvessel quantitation and prognosis in invasive breast carcinoma.Hum Pathol 23: 755–761, 1992.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Toi M, Kashitani J, and Tominaga T: Tumor angiogenesis is an independent prognostic indicator in primary breast carcinoma.Int J Cancer 55: 371–374, 1993.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Weidner N, Folkman J, Pozza F, Bevilacqua P, Allred EN, Moore DH, Meli S, and Gasparini G: Tumor angiogenesis: a new significant and independent prognostic indicator in early-stage breast carcinoma.J Natl Cancer Inst 84: 1875–1887, 1992.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Gasparini G, and Harris AL: Clinical importance of the determination of tumor angiogenesis in breast carcinoma: much more than a new prognostic tool.J Clin Oncol 13: 765–782, 1995.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Kyistad KA, Rydland J, Smethurst HB, Lundgren S, Fjosne HE, and Haraldseth O: Axillary lymph node metastases in breast cancer: preoperative detection with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI.Eur Radiol 10: 1464–1471, 2000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kuhl CK, Bieling H, Gieseke J, Ebel T, Mielcarek P, Far F, Folkers P, Elevelt A, and Schild HH: Breast neoplasms: T2* susceptibility-contrast, first-pass perfusion MR imaging.Radiology 202: 87–95, 1997.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Buckley DL, Drew PJ, Mussurakis S, Monson JR, and Horsman A: Microvessel density of invasive breast cancer assessed by dynamic Gd-DTPA enhanced MRI.J Magn Reson Imaging 7: 461–464, 1997.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. van Dijke CF, Brasch RC, Roberts TP, Weidner N, Mathur A, Shames DM, Mann JS, Demsar F, Lang P, and Schwickert HC: Mammary carcinoma model: correlation of macromolecular contrast-enhanced MR imaging characterizations of tumor microvasculature and histologic capillary density.Radiology 198: 813–818, 1996.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Folkman J, and Shing Y: Angiogenesis.J Biol Chem 267: 10931–10934, 1992.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Heywang SH, Hahn D, Schmidt H, Krischke I, Eiermann W, Bassermann R, and Lissner J: MR imaging of the breast using gadolinium-DTPA.J Comput Assist Tomogr 10: 199–204, 1986.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Ercolani P, Valeri G, and Amici F: Dynamic MRI of the breast.Eur J Radiol 27 Suppl 2: S 265–271, 1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Folkman J, and Klagsbrun M: Angiogenic factors.Science 235: 442–447, 1987.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Folkman J, Watson K, Ingber D, and Hanahan D: Induction of angiogenesis during the transition from hyperplasia to neoplasia.Nature 339: 58–61, 1989.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Pham CD, Roberts TP, van Bruggen N, Melnyk O, Mann J, Ferrara N, Cohen RL, and Brasch RC: Magnetic resonance imaging detects suppression of tumor vascular permeability after administration of antibody to vascular endothelial growth factor.Cancer Invest 16: 225–230, 1998.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Kuhl CK, and Schild HH: Dynamic image interpretation of MRI of the breast.J Magn Reson Imaging 12: 965–974, 2000.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Fidler IJ: Critical factors in the biology of human cancer metastasis: twenty-eighth G.H.A. Clowes memorial award lecture.Cancer Res 50: 6130–6138, 1990.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Ellis LM, and Fidler IJ: Angiogenesis and breast cancer metastasis.Lancet 346: 388–390, 1995.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Folkman J: What is the evidence that tumors are angiogenesis dependent?J Natl Cancer Inst 82: 4–6, 1990.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Blood CH, and Zetter BR: Tumor interactions with the vasculature: angiogenesis and tumor metastasis.Biochim Biophys Acta 1032: 89–118, 1990.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Liotta LA, and Stracke ML: Tumor invasion and metastases: biochemical mechanisms.Cancer Treat Res 40: 223–238, 1988.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Ogawa Y, Chung YS, Nakata B, Takatsuka S, Maeda K, Sawada T, Kato Y, Yoshikawa K, Sakurai M, and Sowa M: Microvessel quantitation in invasive breast cancer by staining for factor Hi-related antigen.Br J Cancer 71: 1297–1301, 1995.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Van Hoef ME, Knox WF, Dhesi SS, Howell A, and Schor AM: Assessment of tumour vascularity as a prognostic factor in lymph node negative invasive breast cancer.Eur J Cancer 29: 1141–1145, 1993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Surgery, Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan

    Takeshi Nagashima, Masato Suzuki, Hiroshi Yagata, Hideyuki Hashimoto, Tomotane Shishikura, Nobuhiro Imanaka & Masaru Miyazaki

  2. Department of Radiology, Chiba University Hospital, Japan

    Takuya Ueda

Authors
  1. Takeshi Nagashima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Masato Suzuki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hiroshi Yagata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hideyuki Hashimoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tomotane Shishikura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nobuhiro Imanaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Takuya Ueda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Masaru Miyazaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Reprint requests to Takeshi Nagashima, Department of General Surgery, Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo-ku, Chiba 260-0856, Japan.

About this article

Cite this article

Nagashima, T., Suzuki, M., Yagata, H. et al. Dynamic-enhanced MRI predicts metastatic potential of invasive ductal breast cancer. Breast Cancer 9, 226–230 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02967594

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02967594

Key words

Search

Navigation