Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T12:47:54.982Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - MR perfusion imaging in breast cancer

from Section 2 - Clinical applications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2013

Peter B. Barker
Affiliation:
The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Xavier Golay
Affiliation:
National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London
Gregory Zaharchuk
Affiliation:
Stanford University Medical Center
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed in women in the United States, with about 200 000 new cases diagnosed in the USA in 2010, and it is the second most common cause of death among females, after lung cancer [1]. Pathophysiology of breast cancer is related to vascular and perfusion anomalies. Living cells require oxygen and nutrients to survive; for that reason they need to develop new blood vessels, since the largest distance compatible with simple oxygen diffusion is 200 µm. When small malignant lesions develop in the breast, they can satisfy oxygen and nutrient demands through simple diffusion; however, as malignant tumors enlarge, they are no longer capable of relying on diffusion. Demands for oxygen and nutrients exceed supply, leading to an ischemic and hypoglycemic state (metabolic stressors). These metabolic stressors along with many other identified stressors, such as mechanical (pressure generated by proliferating cells in the tumor space), immune/inflammatory cells, or genetic mutations (activation of oncogenes or deletion of suppressor genes), stimulate the release of many biochemical factors, among which is the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). VEGF promotes the formation of new branching and feeding vessels from pre-existing peritumoral capillaries [2]. Circulating endothelial cells that were shed from the vascular wall and bone marrow may contribute to the angiogenesis as well [3, 4].

Type
Chapter
Information
Clinical Perfusion MRI
Techniques and Applications
, pp. 255 - 280
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

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

American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2010. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, Inc., 2010.Google Scholar
Pham, CD, Roberts, TP, van Bruggen, N, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging detects suppression of tumor vascular permeability after administration of antibody to vascular endothelial growth factor. Cancer Invest 1998;16:225–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kerbel, RS.Tumor angiogenesis: past, present and the near future. Carcinogenesis 2000;21:505–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patan, S, Munn, LL, Jain, RK.Intussusceptive microvascular growth in a human colon adenocarcinoma xenograft: a novel mechanism of tumor angiogenesis. Microvasc Res 1996;51:260–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knopp, MV, Giesel, FL, Marcos, H, von Tengg-Kobligk, H, Choyke, P.Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in oncology. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2001;12:301–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dadiani, M, Seger, D, Kreizman, T, et al. Estrogen regulation of vascular endothelial growth factor in breast cancer in vitro and in vivo: the role of estrogen receptor alpha and c-Myc. Endocr Relat Cancer 2009;16:819–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kadambi, A, Mouta, Carreira C, Yun, CO, et al. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-C differentially affects tumor vascular function and leukocyte recruitment: role of VEGF-receptor 2 and host VEGF-A. Cancer Res 2001;61:2404–8.Google ScholarPubMed
Carmeliet, P, Jain, RK.Angiogenesis in cancer and other diseases. Nature 2000;407:249–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bluemke, DA, Gatsonis, CA, Chen, MH, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy. JAMA 2004;292:2735–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lehman, CD, Blume, JD, Thickman, D, et al. Added cancer yield of MRI in screening the contralateral breast of women recently diagnosed with breast cancer: results from the International Breast Magnetic Resonance Consortium (IBMC) trial. J Surg Oncol 2005;92:9–15; discussion 15–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lehman, CD, Gatsonis, C, Kuhl, CK, et al. MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007;356:1295–303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lehman, CD, Isaacs, C, Schnall, MD, et al. Cancer yield of mammography, MR, and US in high-risk women: prospective multi-institution breast cancer screening study. Radiology 2007;244:381–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schnall, MD, Blume, J, Bluemke, DA, et al. Diagnostic architectural and dynamic features at breast MR imaging: multicenter study. Radiology 2006;238:42–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schnall, MD, Rosten, S, Englander, S, Orel, SG, Nunes, LW.A combined architectural and kinetic interpretation model for breast MR images. Acad Radiol 2001;8:591–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhl, CK, Mielcareck, P, Klaschik, S, et al. Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions?Radiology 1999;211:101–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaiser, WA, Deimling, M.[A new multislice measurement sequence for the complete dynamic MR examination of the larger organs: application to the breast]. Rofo 1990;152:577–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, WA, Zeitler, E.MR imaging of the breast: fast imaging sequences with and without Gd-DTPA. Preliminary observations. Radiology 1989;170:681–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kinkel, K, Helbich, TH, Esserman, LJ, et al. Dynamic high-spatial-resolution MR imaging of suspicious breast lesions: diagnostic criteria and interobserver variability. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;175:35–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stoutjesdijk, MJ, Futterer, JJ, Boetes, C, et al. Variability in the description of morphologic and contrast enhancement characteristics of breast lesions on magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 2005;40:355–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhl, CK, Schild, HH, Morakkabati, N.Dynamic bilateral contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast: trade-off between spatial and temporal resolution. Radiology 2005;236:789–800.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
El Khouli, RH, Macura, KJ, Jacobs, MA, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast: quantitative method for kinetic curve type assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193:W295–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boetes, C, Barentsz, JO, Mus, RD, et al. MR characterization of suspicious breast lesions with a gadolinium-enhanced TurboFLASH subtraction technique. Radiology 1994;193:777–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahfouz, AE, Sherif, H, Saad, A, et al. Gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography of the breast: is breast cancer associated with ipsilateral higher vascularity?Eur Radiol 2001;11:965–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sardanelli, F, Iozzelli, A, Fausto, A, Carriero, A, Kirchin, MA.Gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MR imaging breast vascular maps: association between invasive cancer and ipsilateral increased vascularity. Radiology 2005;235:791–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
D'Orsi, CJ.Computer-aided detection: there is no free lunch. Radiology 2001;221:585–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackson, A, O'Connor, JP, Parker, GJ, Jayson, GC.Imaging tumor vascular heterogeneity and angiogenesis using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Cancer Res 2007;13:3449–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Connor, JP, Jackson, A, Parker, GJ, Jayson, GC.DCE biomarkers in the clinical evaluation of antiangiogenic and vascular disrupting agents. Br J Cancer 2007;96:189–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brix, G, Semmler, W, Port, R, et al. Pharmacokinetic parameters in CNS Gd-DTPA enhanced MR imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1991;15:621–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, JS, Tofts, PS, Port, R, et al. MR imaging of tumor microcirculation: promise for the new millennium. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10:903–7.3.0.CO;2-A>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evelhoch, JL.Key factors in the acquisition of contrast kinetic data for oncology. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10:254–9.3.0.CO;2-9>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tofts, PS, Brix, G, Buckley, DL, et al. Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10:223–32.3.0.CO;2-S>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, HZ, Riederer, SJ, Lee, JN.Optimizing the precision in T1 relaxation estimation using limited flip angles. Magn Reson Med 1987;5:399–416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deoni, SC, Rutt, BK, Peters, TM.Rapid combined T1 and T2 mapping using gradient recalled acquisition in the steady state. Magn Reson Med 2003;49:515–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deoni, SC, Peters, TM, Rutt, BK.High-resolution T1 and T2 mapping of the brain in a clinically acceptable time with DESPOT1 and DESPOT2. Magn Reson Med 2005;53:237–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deoni, SC, Peters, TM, Rutt, BK.Determination of optimal angles for variable nutation proton magnetic spin-lattice, T1, and spin-spin, T2, relaxation times measurement. Magn Reson Med 2004;51:194–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, GJ, Roberts, C, Macdonald, A, et al. Experimentally-derived functional form for a population-averaged high-temporal-resolution arterial input function for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Magn Reson Med 2006;56:993–1000.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buonaccorsi, GA, Roberts, C, Cheung, S, et al. Comparison of the performance of tracer kinetic model-driven registration for dynamic contrast enhanced MRI using different models of contrast enhancement. Acad Radiol 2006;13:1112–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, C, Issa, B, Stone, A, et al. Comparative study into the robustness of compartmental modeling and model-free analysis in DCE studies. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006;23:554–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hauth, EA, Jaeger, H, Maderwald, S, et al. Evaluation of quantitative parametric analysis for characterization of breast lesions in contrast-enhanced MR mammography. Eur Radiol 2006;16:2834–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boxerman, JL, Bandettini, PA, Kwong, KK, et al. The intravascular contribution to fMRI signal change: Monte Carlo modeling and diffusion-weighted studies in vivo. Magn Reson Med 1995;34:4–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buckley, DL, Drew, PJ, Mussurakis, S, Monson, JR, Horsman, A.Microvessel density of invasive breast cancer assessed by dynamic Gd-DTPA enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 1997;7:461–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bhujwalla, ZM, Artemov, D, Glockner, J.Tumor angiogenesis, vascularization, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Top Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10:92–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackson, A, Jayson, GC, Li, KL, et al. Reproducibility of quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in newly presenting glioma. Br J Radiol 2003;76:153–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mussurakis, S, Buckley, DL, Horsman, A.Dynamic MRI of invasive breast cancer: assessment of three region-of-interest analysis methods. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1997;21:431–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yankeelov, TE, Luci, JJ, Lepage, M, et al. Quantitative pharmacokinetic analysis of DCE data without an arterial input function: a reference region model. Magn Reson Imaging 2005;23:519–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yankeelov, TE, Rooney, WD, Huang, W, et al. Evidence for shutter-speed variation in CR bolus-tracking studies of human pathology. NMR Biomed 2005;18:173–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Radjenovic, A, Dall, BJ, Ridgway, JP, Smith, MA.Measurement of pharmacokinetic parameters in histologically graded invasive breast tumours using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Br J Radiol 2008;81:120–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tofts, PS.Modeling tracer kinetics in dynamic Gd-DTPA MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 1997;7:91–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tofts, PS, Berkowitz, B, Schnall, MD.Quantitative analysis of dynamic Gd-DTPA enhancement in breast tumors using a permeability model. Magn Reson Med 1995;33:564–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
El Khouli, RH, Jacobs, MA, Bluemke, DA.Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast. Semin Roentgenol 2008;43:265–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, W, Li, X, Morris, EA, et al. The magnetic resonance shutter speed discriminates vascular properties of malignant and benign breast tumors in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2008;105:17943–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haris, M, Husain, N, Singh, A, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) derived transfer coefficient (ktrans) is a surrogate marker of matrix metalloproteinase 9 (MMP-9) expression in brain tuberculomas. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008;28:588–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pediconi, F, Catalano, C, Venditti, F, et al. Color-coded automated signal intensity curves for detection and characterization of breast lesions: preliminary evaluation of a new software package for integrated magnetic resonance-based breast imaging. Invest Radiol 2005;40:448–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, TC, DeMartini, WB, Partridge, SC, Peacock, S, Lehman, CD.Breast MR imaging: computer-aided evaluation program for discriminating benign from malignant lesions. Radiology 2007;244:94–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hauth, EA, Jaeger, H, Maderwald, S, et al. [Quantitative parametric analysis of contrast-enhanced lesions in dynamic MR mammography]. Radiologe 2008;48:593–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauth, EA, Jaeger, HJ, Maderwald, S, et al. Quantitative 2- and 3-dimensional analysis of pharmacokinetic model-derived variables for breast lesions in dynamic, contrast-enhanced MR mammography. Eur J Radiol 2008;66:300–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lehman, CD, Peacock, S, DeMartini, WB, Chen, X.A new automated software system to evaluate breast MR examinations: improved specificity without decreased sensitivity. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;187:51–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veltman, J, Stoutjesdijk, M, Mann, R, et al. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: the value of pharmacokinetic parameters derived from fast dynamic imaging during initial enhancement in classifying lesions. Eur Radiol 2008;18:1123–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
El Khouli, RH, Macura, KJ, Kamel, IR, Jacobs, MA, Bluemke, DA.3-T dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: pharmacokinetic parameters versus conventional kinetic curve analysis, AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;197:1498–505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huang, W, Tudorica, LA, Li, X, et al. Discrimination of benign and malignant breast lesions by using shutter-speed dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2011;261:394–403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sarrazin, D, Le, MG, Arriagada, R, et al. Ten-year results of a randomized trial comparing a conservative treatment to mastectomy in early breast cancer. Radiother Oncol 1989;14:177–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, B, Bauer, M, Margolese, R, et al. Five-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy and segmental mastectomy with or without radiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1985;312:665–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, B, Bryant, J, Wolmark, N, et al. Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:2672–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buchholz, TA, Hill, BS, Tucker, SL, et al. Factors predictive of outcome in patients with breast cancer refractory to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer J 2001;7:413–20.Google ScholarPubMed
Rosen, EL, Blackwell, KL, Baker, JA, et al. Accuracy of MRI in the detection of residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:1275–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheung, YC, Chen, SC, Su, MY, et al. Monitoring the size and response of locally advanced breast cancers to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (weekly paclitaxel and epirubicin) with serial enhanced MRI. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2003;78:51–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
James, K, Eisenhauer, E, Christian, M, et al. Measuring response in solid tumors: unidimensional versus bidimensional measurement. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:523–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Therasse, P.Measuring the clinical response. What does it mean?Eur J Cancer 2002;38:1817–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Park, JO, Lee, SI, Song, SY, et al. Measuring response in solid tumors: comparison of RECIST and WHO response criteria. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2003;33:533–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Partridge, SC, Gibbs, JE, Lu, Y, et al. MRI measurements of breast tumor volume predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and recurrence-free survival. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:1774–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Padhani, AR, Hayes, C, Assersohn, L, et al. Prediction of clinicopathologic response of breast cancer to primary chemotherapy at contrast-enhanced MR imaging: initial clinical results. Radiology 2006;239:361–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wasser, K, Klein, SK, Fink, C, et al. Evaluation of neoadjuvant chemotherapeutic response of breast cancer using dynamic MRI with high temporal resolution. Eur Radiol 2003;13:80–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Pickles, MD, Lowry, M, Manton, DJ, Gibbs, P, Turnbull, LW.Role of dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in monitoring early response of locally advanced breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2005;91:1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhl, CK, Jost, P, Morakkabati, N, et al. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast at 3.0 and 1.5 T in the same patients: initial experience. Radiology 2006;239:666–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rakow-Penner, R, Daniel, B, Yu, H, Sawyer-Glover, A, Glover, GH.Relaxation times of breast tissue at 1.5T and 3T measured using IDEAL. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006;23:87–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rausch, DR, Hendrick, RE.How to optimize clinical breast MR imaging practices and techniques on Your 1.5-T system. Radiographics 2006;26:1469–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harvey, JA, Hendrick, RE, Coll, JM, et al. Breast MR imaging artifacts: how to recognize and fix them. Radiographics 2007;27 Suppl 1:S131–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, LW, Schnall, MD, Orel, SG.Update of breast MR imaging architectural interpretation model. Radiology 2001;219:484–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nunes, LW, Schnall, MD, Orel, SG, et al. Breast MR imaging: interpretation model. Radiology 1997;202:833–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nunes, LW, Schnall, MD, Siegelman, ES, et al. Diagnostic performance characteristics of architectural features revealed by high spatial-resolution MR imaging of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;169:409–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collins, DJ, Padhani, AR.Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of tumor perfusion. Approaches and biomedical challenges. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 2004;23:65–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dale, BM, Jesberger, JA, Lewin, JS, Hillenbrand, CM, Duerk, JL.Determining and optimizing the precision of quantitative measurements of perfusion from dynamic contrast enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2003;18:575–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kurihara, Y, Yakushiji, YK, Tani, I, Nakajima, Y, Van Cauteren, M.Coil sensitivity encoding in MR imaging: advantages and disadvantages in clinical practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;178:1087–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glockner, JF, Hu, HH, Stanley, DW, Angelos, L, King, K.Parallel MR imaging: a user's guide. Radiographics 2005;25:1279–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sardanelli, F, Fausto, A, Esseridou, A, Di Leo, G, Kirchin, MA.Gadobenate dimeglumine as a contrast agent for dynamic breast magnetic resonance imaging: effect of higher initial enhancement thresholds on diagnostic performance. Invest Radiol 2008;43:236–42.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
×