4.6 Article

Diffusion-weighted imaging and FDG PET/CT: predicting the prognoses with apparent diffusion coefficient values and maximum standardized uptake values in patients with invasive ductal carcinoma

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 10, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1477-7819-10-126

Keywords

Invasive ductal carcinoma; breast; magnetic resonance imaging; diffusion magnetic resonance imaging; positron emission tomography

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: FDG PET/CT and DWI are both functional modalities that indirectly represent the biological characteristics of cancer, but there are few studies exploring the association between the two modalities and prognostic factors. Our study attempted to evaluate the mutual association by comparing the prognostic factors, SUVmax value of PET/CT, and ADC values associated with diffusion imaging in invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) patients. Methods: Patients with pathologically confirmed IDC were recruited. There were 118 patients who underwent MRI, including DWI, FDG PET/CT, and immunohistochemical staining of the surgical specimen. Histologic analysis was done on tumor size, lymph node metastasis, expression of estrogen receptors (ER), progesterone receptors (PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), Ki-67, and epidermal growth factor receptors (EGFR). The relationship among ADC values, SUVmax and prognostic factors were evaluated. Results: There was significant association between the ADC value and ER-positive and HER2-negative expression. Significant associations were noted between SUVmax and tumor size, lymph node metastasis, histologic grade, ER and PR expression, EGFR and Ki-67. However, there was no significant correlation between the ADC value and SUVmax. Conclusions: Even though there was no correlation between ADC and SUVmax, both indexes are useful for predicting the prognosis of IDC.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available