Table 3.
The technical parameters and results of various studies investigating the relationship between ADC and prognostic factors of IDC
| Author (year) | Field strength | B values (s mm–2) | Factors found to be associated with ADC |
| Kim et al (2009)42 | 1.5 T | 1000 | None |
| Costantini et al (2010)36 | 1.5 T | 0 and 100 | Grade |
| Jeh et al (2010)30 | 1.5 and 3 T | 750 and 1000 | ER and HER2 expressions |
| Razek et al (2010)35 | 1.5 T | 200 and 400 | Lymph node metastasis, histological grade, tumour size |
| Martincich et al (2012)31 | 1.5 T | 0 and 900 | HER2 expression |
| Kamitani et al (2013)40 | 1.5 T | 0,500 and 1000 | Lymph node metastasis, ER and PR expressions |
| Belli et al (2014)43 | 1.5 T | 0 and 1000 | Grade and lymph node metastasis |
| Park et al (2016)33 | 3 T | 0 and 1000 | Lymph node metastasis and Ki-67 expression |
| Rabasco et al (2017)29 | 3 T | 0 and 750 | Metastasis |
ADC, apparent diffusion coefficient; ER, estrogen receptor; IDC, invasive ductal carcinoma.