Skip to content


Volume 8 Supplement 1

Symposium Mammographicum 2006

  • Poster Presentation
  • Open Access

Pharmacokinetic, shape and texture parameters: comparison with breast tumour grade

  • 1,
  • 2 and
  • 2
Breast Cancer Research20068 (Suppl 1) :P76

  • Published:


  • Breast Cancer
  • Prognostic Factor
  • Pharmacokinetic Parameter
  • Tumour Grade
  • Histological Grade


The histological tumour grade is one of the most important biological prognostic factors in breast cancer. The aim of our study was to compare pharmacokinetic, shape and texture parameters from breast DCE-MRI with the breast tumour grade.


Two hundred and two malignant breast lesions for which the histological grade was available were scanned on a 1.5 T scanner. The 2D T1W FSPGR dynamic scans were followed by 3D T1W FSPGR fat-saturated post-contrast scans. Various pharmacokinetic [1], texture [2] and shape [3] parameters were calculated and the significance of each of the parameters for each of the three tumour grades was assessed.


The 202 lesions were 36 grade I, 110 grade II and 56 grade III malignant lesions. Pharmacokinetic parameter Ktrans (P = 0.025) and shape parameter phi1 (P = 0.039) were significantly different between the grades of tumours. However, there was significant overlap between the tumour grades for both of these parameters. None of the texture parameters were significantly different between the tumour grades.


Although Ktrans and phi1 were significantly different between breast tumour grades, none of the pharmacokinetic, shape and texture parameters can be reliably used to differentiate various tumour grades at the present time.

Authors’ Affiliations

Department of Radiology, Yorkshire Deanery-East, Hull, UK
Centre for Magnetic Resonance Investigations, University of Hull, UK


  1. Brix , et al: J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1999, 15: 621-628.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Haralick , et al: IEEE Trans Systems Man Cybernetics. 1973, 3: 610-621.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Hu M-K: IRE Trans Information Theory. 1962, IT-8: 179-187.Google Scholar


© BioMed Central 2006