cathepsin d and dynamic magnetic resonance …...vol. 3, 559-563, april 1997 clinical cancer...
TRANSCRIPT
Vol. 3, 559-563, April 1997 Clinical Cancer Research 559
Cathepsin D and Dynamic Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Gadolinium Enhancement in Malignant and Benign
Breast Lesions
Paul C. Stomper,1 Janet S. Winston, Steven
Herman, Donald L. Klippenstein, and Leslie E.
Blumenson
Division of Diagnostic Imaging [P. C. S., S. H., D. L. K.] and
Department of Pathology [I. S. W.], Roswell Park Cancer Institute,
School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, and Department ofBiomathematics, Roswell Park Cancer Institute and Roswell ParkGraduate Division, Department of Biometry [L. E. B.], StateUniversity of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York 14263
ABSTRACT
Our purpose was to determine whether the expression of
cathepsin D, a proteolytic enzyme implicated in basement
membrane degradation, is associated with dynamic magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI) enhancement of breast lesions. For-ty-five patients with 48 breast lesions underwent gadolinium-
enhanced spoiled gradient recalled echo MIII followed by ex-cisional biopsy and cathepsin D staining and semiquanfitafive
measurement in the lesions. There was no significant difference
in cathepsin D staining of 25 malignant and 23 benign breast
lesions. A significant association was seen between high cathep-
sin D staining and positive axillary lymph nodes in invasive
carcinomas. Nine ofnine (100%) node-positive carcinomas hadhigh cathepsin D, as compared to three of seven (43%) node-
negative carcinomas (P = 0.02). No significant associations
were observed between cathepsin D staining and MRI en-
hancement amplitude, rate, or washout Cathepsin D has noeffect upon MRI gadolinium enhancement of malignant and
benign breast lesions but is associated with positive axillarylymph nodes in invasive carcinomas.
INTRODUCTION
Cathepsin D has been purported to be a prognostic indica-
tor in breast carcinoma (1-12). Cathepsin D is a proteolytic
enzyme that has been implicated in the degradation of basement
membranes. Gadolinium-enhanced breast MR!2 techniques are
being studied to determine whether breast MRI may comple-
Received 8/15/96; revised 12/26/96; accepted 1/3/97.The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the
payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby markedadvertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to
indicate this fact.
I To whom requests for reprints should be addressed, at Division ofDiagnostic Imaging, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Elm and CarltonStreets, Buffalo, NY 14263. Phone: (716) 845-5796; Fax: (716) 845-8759; E-mail: [email protected].
2 The abbreviations used are: MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; MR.magnetic resonance; TR, repetition time; TE, echo time; SPGR, spoiledgradient recalled echo; DCIS, ductal carcinoma in situ.
rnent mammography in the detection of carcinoma or aid in the
differentiation of benign from malignant lesions (13-25). Because
delivery of intravascular agents to tumors requires transport of the
agent across the vascular endotheiurn and basement membrane to
the interstitiurn and cells of tumors, it is a reasonable hypothesis
that cathepsin D levels in breast lesions may be associated with
MRJ contrast enhancement. We know of no studies in the literature
that assess possible association between cathepsin D immunohis-
tochemical staining and MRI enhancement of breast lesions. This
study was undertaken to assess associations between cathepsin D
staining of malignant and benign breast lesions and dynamic M�
parameters of amplitude, rate, and washout.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study population consists of a subgroup of 45 patients
from a previously reported single-institution dynamic contrast-
enhanced breast MRI trial (22), who underwent excisional bi-
opsy and who also had cathepsin D staining of histological
sections of each lesion. Each of the patients in this study (a) had
a suspicious lesion detected by mammography and/or clinical
examination, (b) volunteered and gave written informed consent
for the Institute’s research review board-approved trial, (c)
underwent dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI within 2 weeks of
the diagnostic mammogram and clinical examination, and (d)
underwent excisional biopsy of the lesion within 2 weeks of the
breast MRI examination. The median age of the patients was 54
years (range, 26-82). Eighteen (40%) patients were 49 years or
younger; 27 (60%) patients were 50 years or older.
The study population consisted of 26 lesions detected by
mammography only, 13 lesions detected by mammography and
clinical examination, and 9 lesions detected by clinical exami-
nation only in patients with normal mammograms. Twenty-six
of the mammographic lesions were soft-tissue abnormalities; I 3
were calcifications. The median size of the mammographic
lesions was 13 mm (range, 5-60 mm). The median size of the
clinically palpable lesions was 20 mm (range, 10-70 mm).
Breast MRI was obtained using a 1.5-I MRI clinical scan-
ner (Signa; GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, WI) and a corn-
rnercially available GE breast coil (model no. M1O8SBR). This
radio-frequency coil is a receive-only set of coils that permits
the operator to select image acquisition from one or both breasts
per data set. After axial localizer images were obtained, the
involved breast was scanned in the sagittal plane using an 1 8-cm
field of view, 3-mm section thickness, and 0-mm intersection
gap. The T1-weighted images were obtained with a IR of 651
ms, TE of 12 rns, 256 X 192 matrix, and one acquisition. Fast
spin-echo T2-weighted images were obtained with a IR of 6000
ms, TE of 120 ms, 256 X 128 matrix and two acquisitions. On
the basis of the T1-weighted and 1,-weighted images, five
contiguous 3-mm sections were selected in the center of the
lesion for SPGR pre- and postcontrast scanning using a IR
Research. on June 27, 2020. © 1997 American Association for Cancerclincancerres.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
A B
44 ��; .) �‘,
#{149}�* �0
-
�*5�
..,. � .�.
:, r� #{149}�-#{149}‘�‘- �
p-., � �f’.,4 � .4.
-‘;:� #{149}�-�‘�-
“I- -� V � �.- � �, .�
-. , �.‘.‘ � 4�, �-t � ; � ‘�
� �
:.� � � �‘ : � � ...4i;” �#{149} �. � ... .- .‘ S
�� .�,J
. -� .5..’, f� � . S
� S
f�.-. �#{231}b.� .�� S � . �
4 . 5- . .-.-. . S
� ,v�Fig. I A. precontrast SPGR MR image. B, postcontrast SPGR MR image obtained I mm after contrast injection shows enhancement of 2.5-
cm-diameter mass (arrow). The amplitude of enhancement was 4.7 post-/precontrast. Histological examination showed invasive ductal carcinoma. C,high-power photomicrograph ( X400) shows dark intracytoplasmic staining of lysosomes for cathepsin D in both invasive carcinoma and DCIS.
Cathepsin D staining was present in 20-50% of cells (2+). Axillary lymph node dissection was negative (0 of 10 nodes).
560 Cathepsin D and Breast MRI Enhancement
i--., .�
;�. �,I’ :
� �p2�J�’ � � ‘:: � :t� ��, � �2’� -� � �. ‘- .‘�.� � �
:� �
�.. t_ �
�. ..
: - �
�
� �
.4
Research. on June 27, 2020. © 1997 American Association for Cancerclincancerres.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Clinical Cancer Research 561
Table I Cathepsin D staining of malignant and benign breastlesions”
Subgroup
(No. of lesions)
cathepsin D staining
2 + or less 3 +
All lesions 14 34All malignant lesions 8 17
Invasive carcinomab 7 15DCISC 1 2
All benign lesions 6 17Fibroadenomas 0 6
Other benign lesions 6 1 1
U There were no significant associations between cathepsin D stain-
ing and histological diagnosis.
b Two of three lobular carcinomas stained 3+; all others wereductal.
C Two cases had microscopic (less than 1 mm) foci of invasion.
of 12.6 ms, TE of 3.6 ms, 60#{176}flip angle, 256 X 192 matrix,
and two acquisitions. Gadopentetate dimeglurnine (Magnevist;
Berlex Laboratories, Wayne, NJ) was administered by hand as a
bolus injection at a dose of 0. 1 rnmol/kg over 10 s followed by
a 20-rnl saline flush via extension tubing and a 20-gauge cath-
eter in an antecubital vein while the patient was in the magnet,
obviating the need for any patient movement between scans.
Scanning began immediately following the injection, and serial
dynamic images were obtained every 30 s for each of the five
contiguous image sections over S mm.
All breast MR images were interpreted jointly by three radi-
obogists with knowledge of the mammographic and clinical find-
ings but without knowledge of the histological findings. Matching
film sets of pre- and postcontrast images were displayed and
interpreted side by side. Two-mm2 region of interest signal inten-
sity measurements were made in two areas of maximal enhance-
ment in the lesion as determined by visual inspection of the dy-
namic MRI scans. The region of interest showing the highest
amplitude of enhancement in the lesion was used for the MR
enhancement time-intensity curves. When tumor enhancement was
not apparent by visual inspection of the MRI scans, lack of tumor
enhancement in each case was confirmed by construction of com-
puter-assisted pixel-by-pixel subtraction images. The three-param-
eter mathematical model used in earlier studies (20, 22) was fitted
to the MR enhancement time-intensity curves using the equation:
SI(t) = I + A[1 - exp(-t/Tc)] - Ct
where SI(t) is the normalized signal intensity (signal intensity
observed at time t divided by the precontrast signal intensity) at
postcontrast time 1, A is the enhancement amplitude, Tc is the
time constant for arrival of contrast material, and C is the
first-order washout rate. Postcontrastlprecontrast signal inten-
sity ratios for each time interval during dynamic scanning were
determined using the predicted curve.
Histological Evaluation. Histological material derived
from excisional biopsy was stained with H&E. The histological
interpretations were performed by one pathologist (J. S. W.)
without knowledge of the MRI findings. For the purposes of this
study, histological diagnoses were categorized as (a) invasive
carcinoma including invasive ductal or invasive lobular carci-
Table 2 Association between cathepsin D staining and size andnodal status of invasive carcinomas
Ca thepsin D staining
P value2+ or less
Pathological size
1-10mm 3 5
11-20mm 4 7
Greater than 20 mm I 5 NS”Nodal status”
Negative nodes 4 3
Positive nodes 0 9 0.02
“ NS. not significant.
I, Nodal status of 16 patients who underwent axillary lymph node
dissections.
noma; (b) DCIS, including pure DCIS and DCIS with micro-
scopic (< I mm in diameter) foci of invasion, because it was
uncertain whether the microscopic foci of invasion were in-
cluded in the limited region of dynamic scanning; (c) fibroad-
enomas; or (d) other benign lesions.
Cathepsin D Immunohistochemical Staining. After re-
view of each case, the most representative block of the suspi-
cious lesion was selected. From each of the selected blocks,
several consecutive 4-p.m sections were obtained. One section
was stained by immunohistochemical technique for cathepsin D
antigen. Staining was performed on the Ventana 320 Automated
Slide Staining System (Ventana Medical Systems, Tucson, AZ).
The detection of cathepsin D utilized a mouse monoclonal
antibody (Oncogene Science) at a dilution of I :200 and the
avidin-biotin complex technique following predigestion with
protease. Diaminobenzidine was used as a chromogen, and the
sections were then counterstained lightly with hematoxylin.
Cathepsin D staining was assessed by estimating the percent-
age of positively staining cells within each lesion examined. The
amount of staining is indicated as 1 +, 2+, or 3+, where I +
represents fewer than 20% positive cells, 2+ represents 20-50%
positive cells, and 3 + represents greater than 50% positive cells.
Analysis. To identify any association between the ca-
thepsin D staining and MRI enhancement features, the following
features were compared. For dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI,
the following categorization of lesions with greater enhance-
ment parameters was used: (a) greater amplitude: lesions that
reached postcontrast/precontrast enhancement ratios equal to or
greater than the median value of 3.0 within 2 mm; (b) greater
rate: lesions that had a time constant for arrival of contrast
(parameter Tc) less than or equal to the median of 20; and (c)
greater washout: lesions that during the 5-mm dynamic scanning
had a washout rate (parameter C) equal to or greater than the
median of I .0 X l0�. Cathepsin D immunohistochemical
staining of lesions was categorized as 3+ or 2+ or less.
The Fisher exact text was used to test the association in the
2 X 2 tables constructed using MRI enhancement amplitude (A)
less than 3 versus amplitude greater than or equal to 3, ampli-
tude less than 2 versus amplitude greater than or equal to 2, rate
(Tc) greater than 20 versus rate (Tc) less than or equal to 20, or
washout (C) less than or equal to 0.001 versus washout (C)
greater than 0.001 (26). P values less than 0.05 were considered
significant.
Research. on June 27, 2020. © 1997 American Association for Cancerclincancerres.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
562 Cathepsin D and Breast MRI Enhancement
Table 3 Associations between cathepsin D staining an d MRJ enhancement parameters
Cathepsin D staining (No. of lesions)Malignant lesions with
positive nodesAll lesions#{176} All malignant lesions”
MRI enhancement 2+ or less 3 + 2+ or less 3 +
All benign lesions”
2+ or less 3 + 2+ or less 3 +
Amplitude (A)Less than 3 9 20 3 10 6 10 0 4Greaterthanorequalto3 5 14 5 7 0 7 0 5
Lessthan2 4 1 1 0 2 4 9 0 0
Greater than or equal to 2 10 23 8 15 2 8 0 9Rate (Tc):
Greater than 20 8 22 3 10 5 12 0 3Less than or equal to 20 6 12 5 7 1 5 0 6
Washout (C)
Less than or equal to 0.001 5 17 3 9 2 8 0 4Greater than 0.001 9 17 5 8 4 9 0 5a No significant associations were found.
RESULTS
Positive cathepsin D staining was noted in both benign and
malignant epithelial cells and macrophages and was located in
intracytoplasmic granules, most likely corresponding to lyso-
somes and endosomes (Fig. 1). In general, benign epithelium
showed a low-intensity small granular staining, whereas in situ
and invasive carcinomas and macrophages displayed a more
consistent, diffuse, and higher-intensity staining of larger gran-
ules. Seventeen of 25 (68%) malignant and 17 of 23 (74%)
benign lesions showed 3+ (greater than 50%) positivity staining
cells for cathepsin D. These results are summarized in Table 1.
The associations between cathepsin D staining and size and
nodal status of the invasive carcinomas included in the study is
shown in Table 2. There was no significant association between
cathepsin D staining and pathological size. There was a significant
association between high cathepsm D staining and positive axillaty
lymph nodes. Of 16 patients who underwent lymph node dissec-
tion, 9 of 9 (100%) patients with positive lymph nodes had high
(3+) cathepsin D staining of their primary tumors as compared to
3 of 7 (43%) patients with negative lymph nodes (P = 0.02).
The associations between MRI enhancement parameters
and cathepsin D staining are shown in Table 3. No significant
associations were observed between cathepsin D staining and
the MRI enhancement parameters of amplitude greater or equal
to three, amplitude greater or equal to two, rate, or washout.
DISCUSSION
Our study shows no significant association between Ca-
thepsin D staining and MR gadolinium enhancement amplitude,
rate, or washout of malignant and benign breast lesions. How-
ever, a significant association was seen between cathepsin D
staining and positive axillary lymph nodes in invasive carcino-
mas. Nine of nine (100%) node-positive carcinomas had high
cathepsin D as compared to three of seven (43%) node-negative
carcinomas (P = 0.02).Cathepsins are ubiquitous lysosomal enzymes that are clas-
sified both functionally and according to their active site. In the
metastatic process, these proteolytic enzymes play a role in
mediating passage of malignant cells between tissue and vessels
via degradation of the basement membrane. As reviewed by
Schwartz (2), measurements of cathepsin D in breast cancer
have been shown in a majority of studies to be significant in
predicting recurrence and may also predict disease-free and
overall survival. A potential role of cathepsin D in models
utilizing histological and molecular features of tumors in the
hope of obtaining similar prognostic information as axillary
lymph node dissection warrants continued investigation (27-
29). Reported differences concerning the role of cathepsin D as
a prognostic marker in breast cancer may be related in part to the
methodology used and the employment of assays of antibodies
prepared to different portions of the molecule (2, 4).
The use of MR enhancement parameters as an in vivo func-
tional assay and predictor of biological and prognostic features of
malignant and benign breast lesions has been a topic of several
recent reports. In a prior report including 22 invasive carcinomas,
we have shown no significant association between MR gadolinium
enhancement parameters and tumor size, nodal status, or grade
(22). An association between a peripheral pattern of enhancement
in invasive carcinomas and high DNA S phase has been shown
(23). Several studies of vessel density determined by factor Vifi
staining have shown that MRI gadolinium enhancement is not
highly predictive of vessel density (24, 25).
Although basement membrane integrity would appear to
play a role in any transport mechanism between vessels and
surrounding tissue, its relative importance may depend on the
size and transport mechanism for a given molecule or cell. Jan,describing barriers to drug delivery in solid tumors, has de-
scribed multiple factors involving fluid and molecular transport
in the delivery of intravascular agents through the endothelium
and basement membrane into the interstitium and cells of le-
sions (30, 31). Macromolecular MRI contrast media currently
being studied in animal models may be more suited than the low
molecular weight gadolinium to define hyperpermeability asso-
ciated with high cathepsin D levels (32-34). Further develop-
ment of contrast-enhanced breast MRI and analysis techniques
may also improve our ability to perform in vivo assays of vessel
hyperpermeability in lesions.
We conclude that, although there is an association between
high cathepsin D staining and positive axillary lymph nodes in
invasive carcinomas, there is no significant association between
Research. on June 27, 2020. © 1997 American Association for Cancerclincancerres.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
Clinical Cancer Research 563
cathepsin D staining and MR low molecular weight gadolinium
enhancement amplitude, rate, or washout in malignant and be-
nign breast lesions. Factors other than basement membrane
integrity, including hemodynamics and capillary permeability
and transport factors, are probably more responsible for the
range of gadolinium enhancement seen in breast lesions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge Carol Kaminski, R.T., and Jeanne Cervi,
R.T.; Joyce Bailey for performing immunohistochemical staining; and
Christine Sheehan for data management and manuscript preparation.
REFERENCES
1. Itoh, Y., Kobayashi, S., Iwase, H., Yamashita, H., Kuzushima, T.,Iwata, H., Yamashita, T., Naitoh, A., Itoh, K., and Masaoka, A. Clinicalsignificance of cathepsin-D assay in breast cancer tissues. J. Surg.
Oncol., 60: 221-226, 1995.
2. Schwartz, M. K. Tissue cathepsins as tumor markers (Review). Clin.Chim. Acta, 237: 67-78, 1995.
3. Shaheen, R. M., Miseljic, S., Wiehle, R. D., and Wiuliff, J. L.
Relation between cathepsin-D expression and other prognostic factors inbreast carcinoma. Clin. Chem., 41: 1585-1591, 1995.
4. O’Donoghue, A. E., Poller, D. N., Bell, J. A., Galea, M. H., Elston,C. W., Blamey, R. W., and Ellis, I. 0. Cathepsin-D in primary breastcarcinoma: adverse prognosis is associated with expression of cathep-
sin-D in stromal cells. Breast Cancer Res. Treat., 33: 137-145, 1995.
5. Rochefort, H., Capony, F., and Garcia, M. A protease involved in
breast cancer metastasis. Cancer Metastasis Rev., 9: 321-331, 1990.
6. Kute, T. E., Shao, Z. M., Sugg, N. K., Long, R. T., Russell, G. B., andCase, L. D. Cathepsin D as a prognostic indicator for node-negativebreast cancer patients using both immunoassays and enzymatic assays.Cancer Res., 52: 5198-5203, 1992.
7. Ravdin, P. M. Evaluation of cathepsin D as a prognostic factor inbreast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat., 24: 219-226, 1993.
8. Kandalaft, P. L., Chang, K. L., Ahn, C. W., Traweek, S. T., Mehta,
P., and Battifora, H. Prognostic significance of immunohistochemicalanalysis of cathepsin D in low-stage breast cancer. Cancer (Phila.), 71:
2756-2763, 1993.
9. Domagala, W., Striker, G., Szadowska, A., Dukowicz, A., Weber,
K., and Osbom, M. Cathepsin D in invasive ductal NOS breast carci-noma as defined by immunohistochemistry: no correlation with survivalat S years. Am. J. Pathol., 141: 1003-1012, 1992.
10. Duffy, M. J., Brouillet, J. P., Reilly, D., McDermott, E., O’Higgins,N., Fennelly, J. J., Maudelonde, T., and Rochefort, H. Cathepsin Dconcentration in breast cancer cytosols: correlation with biochemical,
histological, and clinical findings. Clin. Chem., 37: 101-104, 1991.
1 1. Granata, G., Coradini, D., Cappeletti, V., and Di Fronzo, G. Prog-
nostic relevance of cathepsin D versus oestrogen receptors in node
negative breast cancers. Eur. J. Cancer, 27: 970-972, 1991.
12. Rochefort, H. Response to P. M. Ravdin (BCRT 24:219-226,
1993), Evaluation of cathepsin D as a prognostic factor in breast cancer.Breast Cancer Res. Treat., 26: 107-109, 1993.
13. Weinreb, J. C., and Newstead, G. MR imaging of the breast.Radiology, 196: 593-610, 1995.
14. Harms, S. E., Flamig, D. P., Hesley, K. L., Meiches, M. D., Jensen,
R. A., Evans, W. P., Savino, D. A., and Wells, R. V. MR imaging of the
breast with rotating delivery of excitation off resonance: clinical expe-rience with pathologic correlation. Radiology, 187: 493-501, 1993.
15. Heywang-Koebrunner, S. H. Diagnosis of breast cancer with MR:review after 1250 patient examinations. Electromedica (Engl. Ed.), 61:
43-52, 1993.
16. Stack, J. P., Redmond, 0. M., Codd, M. B., Dervan, P. A., andEnnis, J. T. Breast disease: tissue characterization with Gd-DTPA en-
hancement profiles. Radiology, 174: 491-494, 1990.
17. Rubens, D., Totterman, S., Chacko, A. K., Kothari, K., Logan-Young, W., Szumowski, J., Simon, J. H., and Zachariah, E. Gado-
pentetate dimeglumine-enhanced chemical-shift MR imaging of thebreast. Am. J. Roentgenol., 157: 267-270, 1991.
18. Orel, S., Schnall, M. D., Powell, C. M., Hochman, M. G.. Solin,L. J. Fowble, B. L., Torosian, M. H., and Rosato, E. F. Staging of
suspected breast cancer: effect of MR imaging and MR-guided biopsy.
Radiology, 196: 115-122, 1995.
19. Flickinger, F. W., Allison, J. D., Sherry, R. M., and Wright, J. C.Differentiation of benign from malignant breast masses by time-inten-
sity evaluation of contrast enhanced MRI. Magn. Reson. Imaging, 11:
617-620, 1993.
20. Orel, S., Schnall, M. D., LiVolsi, V. A., and Troupin, R. H.Suspicious breast lesions: MR imaging with radiologic-pathologic cor-
relations. Radiology, 190: 485-493, 1994.
21. Fobben, E. S., Rubin, C. Z., Kalisher, L., Dembner, A. G., Seltzer,M. H., and Santoro, E. J. Breast MR imaging with commercially
available techniques: radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology. 196:
143-152, 1995.
22. Stomper, P. C., Herman, S., Klippenstein, D. L., Winston, J. S.,Edge, S. B., Arredondo, M. A., Mazurchuk, R. V., and Blumenson, L. E.
Suspect breast lesions: findings at dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR
imaging correlated with mammographic and pathologic features. Radi-
ology, 197: 387-395, 1995.
23. Stomper. P. C., Herman, S., Klippenstein, D. L., Winston, J. S.,Budnick, R. M., and Stewart, C. C. Invasive breast carcinoma: analysis
of dynamic magnetic resonance imaging enhancement features and cell
proliferative activity determined by DNA S-phase percentage. Cancer
(Phila.), 77: 1844-1849, 1996.
24. Gilles, R., Zafrani, B., Guinebreti#{232}re, J. M., Meunier, M.,Lucidarme, 0., Tardivon, A. A., Rochard, F., Vanel, D., Neuenshwan-
der, S., and Arriagada, R. Ductal carcinoma in situ: MR imaging-histopathologic correlation. Radiology, 196: 415-419, 1995.
25. Hulka, C. A., Smith, B. L., Sgroi, D. C., Tan, L., Edmister, W. B.,Semple, J. P., Campbell, T., Kopans, D. B., Brady, T. J., and Weisskoff,R. M. Benign and malignant breast lesions: differentiation with echo-planar MR imaging. Radiology, 197: 33-38, 1995.
26. Fleiss, J. L. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, Ed. 2, pp
20-27. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1981.
27. Chadha, M., Chabon, A., Friedmann, P., and Vikram, B. Predictorsof axillary lymph node metastases in patients with Tl breast cancer: amultivariate analysis. Cancer (Phila.), 73: 350-353, 1994.
28. Ravdin, P. M., DeLaurentiis, M., Vendely, T., and Clark, G. M.Prediction of axillary lymph node status in breast cancer patients by use
of prognostic indicators. J. NatI. Cancer Inst., 86: 1771-1775, 1994.
29. Cady, B. The need to reexamine axillary lymph node dissection in
invasive breast cancer. Cancer (Phila.), 73: 505-508, 1994.
30. Jam, R. K. Barriers to drug delivery in solid tumors. Sci. Am., 271:
58-65, 1994.
3 1 . Jam, R. K. 1995 Whitaker Lecture: delivery of molecules, particles,
and cells to solid tumors. Ann. Biomed. Eng., 24: 457-473, 1996.
32. van Dijke, C. F., Brasch, R. C., Roberts, T. P. L., Weidner, N., Mathur,A., Shames, D. M., Mann, J. S., Demsar, F., Lang, P., and Schwickert, H. C.
Mammary carcinoma model: correlation of macromolecular contrast en-
hanced MR imaging characterizations of tumor micruvasculature and his-tologic capillary density. Radiology, 198: 813-818, 1996.
33. Schwickert, H. C., Stiskal, M., Roberts, T. P. L., van Dijke, C. F.,
Mann, J., Muhler, A., Shames, D. M., Demsar, F., Disston, A., andBrasch, R. C. Contrast-enhanced MRI assessment of tumor capillary
permeability: the effect of pre-irradiation on the tumor delivery ofchemotherapy. Radiology, 198: 893-898, 1996.
34. Cohen, F. M., Kuwatsuru, R., Shames, D. M., Neuder, M., Mann,
J. S., Vexler, V., Rosenau, W., and Brasch, R. C. Contrast-enhanced
magnetic resonance imaging estimation of altered capillary permeability
in experimental mammary carcinomas after x-irradiation. Invest. Ra-diol., 29: 970-977, 1994.
Research. on June 27, 2020. © 1997 American Association for Cancerclincancerres.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from
1997;3:559-563. Clin Cancer Res P C Stomper, J S Winston, S Herman, et al. lesions.gadolinium enhancement in malignant and benign breast Cathepsin D and dynamic magnetic resonance imaging
Updated version
http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/3/4/559
Access the most recent version of this article at:
E-mail alerts related to this article or journal.Sign up to receive free email-alerts
Subscriptions
Reprints and
To order reprints of this article or to subscribe to the journal, contact the AACR Publications
Permissions
Rightslink site. Click on "Request Permissions" which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center's (CCC)
.http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/3/4/559To request permission to re-use all or part of this article, use this link
Research. on June 27, 2020. © 1997 American Association for Cancerclincancerres.aacrjournals.org Downloaded from