4.6 Article

Dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI features correlate with invasive breast cancer angiogenesis

期刊

NPJ BREAST CANCER
卷 7, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41523-021-00247-3

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant [P30 CA015704]
  2. NIH/NCI [R01CA248192, R01CA203883]
  3. Department of Defense [W81XWH-18-1-0098]
  4. Safeway Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study evaluated the association of breast cancer features on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI with MVD, a marker for angiogenesis. Lesions with high MVD levels showed higher peak SER and WF, and some radiomics texture features were promising in predicting increased MVD. DCE-MRI can non-invasively assess breast cancer angiogenesis, which could help optimize treatments based on tumor biology.
Angiogenesis is a critical component of breast cancer development, and identification of imaging-based angiogenesis assays has prognostic and treatment implications. We evaluated the association of semi-quantitative kinetic and radiomic breast cancer features on dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI with microvessel density (MVD), a marker for angiogenesis. Invasive breast cancer kinetic features (initial peak percent enhancement [PE], signal enhancement ratio [SER], functional tumor volume [FTV], and washout fraction [WF]), radiomics features (108 total features reflecting tumor morphology, signal intensity, and texture), and MVD (by histologic CD31 immunostaining) were measured in 27 patients (1/2016-7/2017). Lesions with high MVD levels demonstrated higher peak SER than lesions with low MVD (mean: 1.94 vs. 1.61, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]=0.79, p=0.009) and higher WF (mean: 50.6% vs. 22.5%, AUC=0.87, p=0.001). Several radiomics texture features were also promising for predicting increased MVD (maximum AUC=0.84, p=0.002). Our study suggests DCE-MRI can non-invasively assess breast cancer angiogenesis, which could stratify biology and optimize treatments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据