4.4 Article

On the relationship between the apparent diffusion coefficient and extravascular extracellular volume fraction in human breast cancer

Journal

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
Volume 29, Issue 5, Pages 630-638

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2011.02.004

Keywords

Apparent diffusion coefficient; Extravascular extracellular volume fraction; Human breast cancer

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [NCI 1R01CA129961, NCI R01CA109106, NCI P50 CA128323, 1U01 CA142565, NIH P30 CA68485]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

MRI techniques have been developed that can noninvasively probe the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of water via diffusion-weighted MRI (DW-MRI). These methods have found much application in cancer where it is often found that the ADC within tumors is inversely correlated with tumor cell density, so that an increase in ADC in response to therapy can be interpreted as an imaging biomarker of positive treatment response. Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) methods have also been developed and can noninvasively report on the extravascular extracellular volume fraction of tissues (denoted by v(e)). By conventional reasoning, the ADC should therefore also be directly proportional to v(e). Here we report measurements of both ADC and v(e) obtained from breast cancer patients at both 1.5 and 3.0 T. The 1.5-T data were acquired as part of normal standard of care, while the 3.0-T data were obtained from a dedicated research protocol. We found no statistically significant correlation between ADC and v(e) for the 1.5- or 3.0-T patient sets on either a voxel-by-voxel or a region-of-interest (ROI) basis. These data, combined with similar results from other disease sites in the literature, may indicate that the conventional interpretation of either ADC, v(e) or their relationship is not sufficient to explain experimental findings. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available