Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5959bf8d4d-gl8zf Total loading time: 0.453 Render date: 2022-12-10T00:21:25.400Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

13 - MRS in breast cancer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2010

Peter B. Barker
Affiliation:
The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Alberto Bizzi
Affiliation:
Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta, Milan
Nicola De Stefano
Affiliation:
Università degli Studi, Siena
Rao Gullapalli
Affiliation:
University of Maryland, Baltimore
Doris D. M. Lin
Affiliation:
The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Get access

Summary

Key points

  • MRS of the breast is more technically demanding than that in the brain.

  • Cho levels have been reported to be higher in malignant breast cancer than in benign lesions and normal breast tissue.

  • Early decreases in Cho signal intensity may be seen in lesions that respond to treatment.

  • MRS is limited by sensitivity to lesions at least 1 cm3.

  • Inadequate sensitivity may lead to false negatives, and both false positives and negatives may arise due to insufficient water and lipid suppression, or other artifacts.

Introduction: MRS of breast tissues

Although the vast majority of magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) studies in humans have been performed to date in the central nervous system, there is growing interest in the application of MRS to other organ systems in the body. This is particularly true for areas such as breast cancer, where conventional diagnostic techniques have relatively limited sensitivity and/or specificity. MRS of the breast presents a number of technical challenges (described in detail later in this chapter) which are gradually being overcome, allowing clinical research studies to be performed. Early MRS studies of human breast cancer focused on the phosphorus (31P) nucleus, since localized, water-suppressed proton spectroscopy was not available at that time. However, with the development of improved gradient hardware, spatial localization, and water suppression techniques, 31P spectroscopy has largely been replaced by proton (1H) MRS. The much higher sensitivity of the proton nucleus allows spectra with higher signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) to be recorded from smaller volumes of tissue compared to 31P.

Type
Chapter
Information
Clinical MR Spectroscopy
Techniques and Applications
, pp. 229 - 242
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Sijens, PE, Wijrdeman, HK, Moerland, MA, Bakker, CJ, Vermeulen, JW, Luyten, PR. Human breast cancer in vivo: H-1 and P-31 MR spectroscopy at 1.5 T. Radiology 1988; 169: 615–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sitter, B, Sonnewald, U, Spraul, M, Fjosne, HE, Gribbestad IS. High-resolution magic angle spinning MRS of breast cancer tissue. NMR Biomed 2002; 15: 327–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haddadin, IS, Mcintosh, A, Meisamy, S, Corum, C, Snyder, AL, Powell, NJ, et al. Metabolite quantification and high-field MRS in breast cancer. NMR Biomed 2009; 22: 65–76.
Smith, RA, Mettlin, CJ, Davis, KJ, Eyre, H. American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 2000; 50: 34–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abeloff, MD, Lichter, AS, Niederhuber, JE, Pierce, LJ, Love, RR. Breast. In Abeloff, MD, Armitage, JO, Lichter, AS, Eds. Clinical Oncology. 2nd edn. Oxford: Churchill Livingstone, 1999.Google Scholar
Sabel, M, Aichinger, H. Recent developments in breast imaging. Phys Med Biol 1996; 41: 315–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nass, S, Henderson, I, Lashof, J. Mammography and Beyond. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001.Google Scholar
Gundry, KR. The application of breast MRI in staging and screening for breast cancer. Oncology (Williston Park) 2005; 19: 159–69; discussion 170, 173–4, 177.Google ScholarPubMed
Kriege, M, Brekelmans, CT, Boetes, C, Besnard, PE, Zonderland, HM, Obdeijn, IM, et al. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 427–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lehman, CD, Blume, JD, Weatherall, P, Thickman, D, Hylton, N, Warner, E, et al. Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 2005; 103: 1898–905.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schnall, MD, Blume, J, Bluemke, DA, Deangelis, GA, Debruhl, N, Harms, S, et al. Diagnostic architectural and dynamic features at breast MR imaging: Multicenter study. Radiology 2006; 238: 42–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bluemke, DA, Gatsonis, CA, Chen, MH, Deangelis, GA, Debruhl, N, Harms, S, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy. J Am Med Assoc 2004; 292: 2735–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meisamy, S, Bolan, PJ, Baker, EH, Pollema, MG, Le, CT, Kelcz, F, et al. Adding in vivo quantitative 1H MR spectroscopy to improve diagnostic accuracy of breast MR imaging: Preliminary results of observer performance study at 4.0 T. Radiology 2005; 236: 465–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacobs, MA, Barker, PB, Argani, P, Ouwerkerk, R, Bhujwalla, ZM, Bluemke, DA. Combined dynamic contrast enhanced breast MR and proton spectroscopic imaging: A feasibility study. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005; 21: 23–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacobs, MA, Barker, PB, Bluemke, DA, Maranto, C, Arnold, C, Herskovits, EH, et al. Benign and malignant breast lesions: Diagnosis with multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology 2003; 229: 225–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacobs, MA, Ouwerkerk, R, Wolff, AC, Stearns, V, Bottomley, PA, Barker, PB, et al. Multiparametric and multinuclear magnetic resonance imaging of human breast cancer: Current applications. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2004; 3: 543–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barker, PB, Breiter, SN, Soher, BJ, Chatham, JC, Forder, JR, Samphilipo, MA, et al. Quantitative proton spectroscopy of canine brain: In vivo and in vitro correlations. Magn Reson Med 1994; 32: 157–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, J, Yamaguchi, T, Abe, A, Shizukuishi, K, Uemura, H, Miyagi, E, et al. Clinical evaluation of choline measurement by proton MR spectroscopy in patients with malignant tumors. Radiat Med 2004; 22: 148–54.Google ScholarPubMed
Aboagye, EO, Bhujwalla, ZM. Malignant transformation alters membrane choline phospholipid metabolism of human mammary epithelial cells. Cancer Res 1999; 59: 80–4.Google ScholarPubMed
Cheng, LL, Chang, IW, Smith, BL, Gonzalez, RG. Evaluating human breast ductal carcinomas with high-resolution magic-angle spinning proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy. J Magn Reson 1998; 135: 194–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mountford, CE, Somorjai, RL, Malycha, P, Gluch, L, Lean, C, Russell, P, et al. Diagnosis and prognosis of breast cancer by magnetic resonance spectroscopy of fine-needle aspirates analysed using a statistical classification strategy. Br J Surg 2001; 88: 1234–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bolan, PJ, Nelson, MT, Yee, D, Garwood, M. Imaging in breast cancer: Magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Breast Cancer Res 2005; 7: 149–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Katz-Brull, R, Lavin, PT, Lenkinski, RE. Clinical utility of proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy in characterizing breast lesions. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002; 94: 1197–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roebuck, JR, Cecil, KM, Schnall, MD, Lenkinski, RE. Human breast lesions: Characterization with proton MR spectroscopy. Radiology 1998; 209: 269–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kvistad, KA, Bakken, IJ, Gribbestad, IS, Ehrnholm, B, Lundgren, S, Fjosne, HE, et al. Characterization of neoplastic and normal human breast tissues with in vivo (1)H MR spectroscopy. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999; 10: 159–64.3.0.CO;2-0>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seenu, V, Pavan Kumar, MN, Sharma, U, Gupta, SD, Mehta, SN, Jagannathan, NR. Potential of magnetic resonance spectroscopy to detect metastasis in axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer. Magn Reson Imaging 2005; 23: 1005–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yeung, DK, Yang, WT, Tse, GM. Breast cancer: In vivo proton MR spectroscopy in the characterization of histopathologic subtypes and preliminary observations in axillary node metastases. Radiology 2002; 225: 190–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meisamy, S, Bolan, PJ, Baker, EH, Bliss, RL, Gulbahce, E, Everson, LI, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy of locally advanced breast cancer: Predicting response with in vivo (1)H MR spectroscopy – a pilot study at 4 T. Radiology 2004; 233: 424–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jagannathan, NR, Kumar, M, Seenu, V, Coshic, O, Dwivedi, SN, Julka, PK, et al. Evaluation of total choline from in-vivo volume localized proton MR spectroscopy and its response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer. Br J Cancer 2001; 84: 1016–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maril, N, Collins, CM, Greenman, RL, Lenkinski, RE. Strategies for shimming the breast. Magn Reson Med 2005; 54: 1139–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blamire, AM, Rothman, DL, Nixon, T. Dynamic shim updating: A new approach towards optimized whole brain shimming. Magn Reson Med 1996; 36: 159–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sukumar, S, Johnson, MO, Hurd, RE, Zijl, PC. Automated shimming for deuterated solvents using field profiling. J Magn Reson 1997; 125: 159–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gruetter, R. Automatic, localized in vivo adjustment of all first- and second-order shim coils. Magn Reson Med 1993; 29: 804–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bolan, PJ, Henry, PG, Baker, EH, Meisamy, S, Garwood, M. Measurement and correction of respiration-induced B0 variations in breast 1H MRS at 4 Tesla. Magn Reson Med 2004; 52: 1239–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bolan, PJ, Delabarre, L, Baker, EH, Merkle, H, Everson, LI, Yee, D, et al. Eliminating spurious lipid sidebands in 1H MRS of breast lesions. Magn Reson Med 2002; 48: 215–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacobs, MA, Barker, PB, Bottomley, PA, Bhujwalla, Z, Bluemke, DA. Proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging of human breast cancer: A preliminary study. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004; 19: 68–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yongbi, MN, Ding, S, Dunn, JF. Fat suppression at 7 T using a surface coil: Application of an adiabatic half-passage chemical shift selective radiofrequency pulse. J Magn Reson Imaging 1995; 5: 768–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogg, RJ, Kingsley, PB, Taylor, JS. WET, a T1- and B1-insensitive water-suppression method for in vivo localized 1 H NMR spectroscopy. J Magn Reson B 1994; 104: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M, Gillen, J, Barker, PB, Golay, X. Simultaneous water and lipid suppression for in vivo brain spectroscopy in humans. Magn Reson Med 2005; 54: 691–6.Google ScholarPubMed
Star-Lack, J, Nelson, SJ, Kurhanewicz, J, Huang, LR, Vigneron, DB. Improved water and lipid suppression for 3D PRESS CSI using RF band selective inversion with gradient dephasing (BASING). Magn Reson Med 1997; 38: 311–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mescher, M, Merkle, H, Kirsch, J, Garwood, M, Gruetter, R. Simultaneous in vivo spectral editing and water suppression. NMR Biomed 1998; 11: 266–72.3.0.CO;2-J>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hu, J, Vartanian, SA, Xuan, Y, Latif, Z, Soulen, RL. An improved 1 H magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging technique for the human breast: Preliminary results. Magn Reson Imaging 2005; 23: 571–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernst, T, Chang, L. Elimination of artifacts in short echo time H MR spectroscopy of the frontal lobe. Magn Reson Med 1996; 36: 462–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shungu, DC, Glickson, JD. Sensitivity and localization enhancement in multinuclear in vivo NMR spectroscopy by outer volume presaturation. Magn Reson Med 1993; 30: 661–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barker, PB, Smith, M, Gillen, JS, Jacobs, MA. A protocol for quantitative 3D MR spectroscopic imaging of the human breast. ENC. Asilomar, CA, 2004.Google Scholar
Maudsley, AA, Matson, GB, Hugg, JW, Weiner, MW. Reduced phase encoding in spectroscopic imaging. Magn Reson Med 1994; 31: 645–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Golay, X, Gillen, J, Zijl, PCM, Barker, PB. Scan time reduction in proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging of the human brain. Magn Reson Med 2002; 47: 384–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dydak, U, Weiger, M, Pruessmann, KP, Meier, D, Boesiger, P. Sensitivity-encoded spectroscopic imaging. Magn Reson Med 2001; 46: 713–22.Google ScholarPubMed
Posse, S, Tedeschi, G, Risinger, R, Ogg, R, Bihan, D. High speed 1 H spectroscopic imaging in human brain by echo planar spatial-spectral encoding. Magn Reson Med 1995; 33: 34–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakken, IJ, Gribbestad, IS, Singstad, TE, Kvistad, KA. External standard method for the in vivo quantification of choline-containing compounds in breast tumors by proton MR spectroscopy at 1.5 Tesla. Magn Reson Med 2001; 46: 189–92.Google ScholarPubMed
Bolan, PJ, Meisamy, S, Baker, EH, Lin, J, Emory, T, Nelson, M, et al. In vivo quantification of choline compounds in the breast with 1 H MR spectroscopy. Magn Reson Med 2003; 50: 1134–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soher, BJ, Zijl, PC, Duyn, JH, Barker, PB. Quantitative proton MR spectroscopic imaging of the human brain. Magn Reson Med 1996; 35: 356–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoult, DI, Richards, RE. The signal-to-noise ratio of the nuclear magnetic resonance experiment. J Magn Reson 1976; 24: 71–85.Google Scholar
Tkac, I, Andersen, P, Adriany, G, Merkle, H, Ugurbil, K, Gruetter, R. In vivo 1H NMR spectroscopy of the human brain at 7 T. Magn Reson Med 2001; 46: 451–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sijens, PE, Bent, MJ, Nowak, PJ, Dijk, P, Oudkerk, M. 1H chemical shift imaging reveals loss of brain tumor choline signal after administration of Gd-contrast. Magn Reson Med 1997; 37: 222–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, JK, Kwock, L, Castillo, M. Effects of contrast material on single-volume proton MR spectroscopy. Am J Neuroradiol 2000; 21: 1084–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Joe, BN, Chen, VY, Salibi, N, Fuangtharntip, P, Hildebolt, CF, Bae, KT. Evaluation of 1H-magnetic resonance spectroscopy of breast cancer pre- and postgadolinium administration. Invest Radiol 2005; 40: 405–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jagannathan, NR, Singh, M, Govindaraju, V, Raghunathan, P, Coshic, O, Julka, PK, et al. Volume localized in vivo proton MR spectroscopy of breast carcinoma: Variation of water–fat ratio in patients receiving chemotherapy. NMR Biomed 1998; 11: 414–22.3.0.CO;2-W>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×