Login Register Cart 0
Generic placeholder image

Current Medical Imaging

Editor-in-Chief

ISSN (Print): 1573-4056
ISSN (Online): 1875-6603

Back
Journal Home About Journal Editorial Board Journal Insight Current Issue Volumes/Issues
Subscribe
Research Article

Association Between Imaging Features Using the BI-RADS and Tumor Subtype in Patients with Invasive Breast Cancer

Author(s): Min Jung Ryu, Young Seon Kim* and Seung Eun Lee

Volume 18, Issue 6, 2022

Published on: 16 July, 2021

Article ID: e200521193457 Pages: 10

DOI: 10.2174/1573405617666210520155157

Price: $65

conference banner
Abstract

Background: Different molecular breast cancer subtypes present different biologic features, treatment options, and clinical prognoses. The breast cancer imaging phenotype may help precisely classify breast cancer in a non-invasive manner.

Objective: To identify the association between the imaging and clinicopathologic features of invasive breast cancer according to the molecular subtype.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records of 313 consecutive women with breast cancer who underwent surgery between March 2018 and February 2019. Preoperative imaging studies were also reviewed and the association between the clinicopathologic and imaging features was evaluated according to the molecular subtype.

Results: On mammography, the presence of microcalcifications was correlated with the human epidermal factor receptor 2-positive subtype (67%, 14/21). Luminal A and B tumors were more likely to have a spiculated margin (57% [63/110] and 41% [34/81]), while human epidermal factor receptor 2-positive and triple-negative breast cancers were more likely to have an indistinct margin (56% [10/18] and 35% [17/48]). On ultrasonography, luminal A tumors were likely to be depicted as masses with an irregular shape (85%, 115/136) and spiculated margin (49%, 66/136). On magnetic resonance imaging, triple-negative breast cancer appeared as a mass (n=13) that frequently had an irregular shape (62%, 8/13) but was more likely to be oval or round (39%, 5/13) than other subtypes.

Conclusion: Some imaging features on mammography, ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging could be useful predictors of the molecular subtype of breast cancer and may aid precision medicine development for patients with breast cancer according to the subtype.

Keywords: Breast cancer, biological markers, tumor subtype, mammography, ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging.

Graphical Abstract

[1]
Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2015; 65(2): 87-108.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3322/caac.21262] [PMID: 25651787]
[2]
de Ronde JJ, Hannemann J, Halfwerk H, et al. Concordance of clinical and molecular breast cancer subtyping in the context of preoperative chemotherapy response. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010; 119(1): 119-26.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-009-0499-6] [PMID: 19669409]
[3]
Sørlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, et al. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001; 98(19): 10869-74.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.191367098] [PMID: 11553815]
[4]
Mauri D, Pavlidis N, Ioannidis JP. Neoadjuvant versus adjuvant systemic treatment in breast cancer: A meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97(3): 188-94.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dji021] [PMID: 15687361]
[5]
Dekker TJ, Smit VT, Hooijer GK, et al. Reliability of core needle biopsy for determining ER and HER2 status in breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2013; 24(4): 931-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mds599] [PMID: 23211940]
[6]
Turkoz FP, Solak M, Petekkaya I, et al. Association between common risk factors and molecular subtypes in breast cancer patients. Breast 2013; 22(3): 344-50.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2012.08.005] [PMID: 22981738]
[7]
Wang GS, Zhu H, Bi SJ. Pathological features and prognosis of different molecular subtypes of breast cancer. Mol Med Rep 2012; 6(4): 779-82.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3892/mmr.2012.981] [PMID: 22797840]
[8]
Goldhirsch A, Winer EP, Coates AS, et al. Panel members. Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer: Highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2013. Ann Oncol 2013; 24(9): 2206-23.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdt303] [PMID: 23917950]
[9]
Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Thürlimann B, Senn HJ. Panel members. Strategies for subtypes- dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: Highlights of the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2011. Ann Oncol 2011; 22(8): 1736-47.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdr304] [PMID: 21709140]
[10]
Khokher S, Qureshi MU, Mahmood S, Nagi AH. Association of immunohistochemically defined molecular subtypes with clinical response to presurgical chemotherapy in patients with advanced breast cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2013; 14(5): 3223-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.5.3223] [PMID: 23803108]
[11]
Loi S, Pommey S, Haibe-Kains B, et al. CD73 promotes anthracycline resistance and poor prognosis in triple negative breast cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2013; 110(27): 11091-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1222251110] [PMID: 23776241]
[12]
Perou CM, Sørlie T, Eisen MB, et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 2000; 406(6797): 747-52.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35021093] [PMID: 10963602]
[13]
Sasaki Y, Tsuda H. Clinicopathological characteristics of triple-negative breast cancers. Breast Cancer 2009; 16(4): 254-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12282-009-0153-5] [PMID: 19657711]
[14]
Chia SK, Bramwell VH, Tu D, et al. A 50-gene intrinsic subtype classifier for prognosis and prediction of benefit from adjuvant tamoxifen. Clin Cancer Res 2012; 18(16): 4465-72.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-0286] [PMID: 22711706]
[15]
Prat A, Pineda E, Adamo B, et al. Clinical implications of the intrinsic molecular subtypes of breast cancer. Breast 2015; 24(Suppl. 2): S26-35.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2015.07.008] [PMID: 26253814]
[16]
American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging and Reporting and DataSystem (ACR BI-RADS® Atlas). 5th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology 2013.
[17]
Marino MA, Riedl CC, Bernathova M, et al. Imaging Phenotypes in Women at High Risk for Breast Cancer on Mammography, Ultrasound, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Using the Fifth Edition of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Eur J Radiol 2018; 106: 150-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.07.026] [PMID: 30150038]
[18]
Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: Experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 1991; 19(5): 403-10.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.1991.tb00229.x] [PMID: 1757079]
[19]
Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College Of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28(16): 2784-95.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.25.6529] [PMID: 20404251]
[20]
Dowsett M, Nielsen TO, A’Hern R, et al. International Ki-67 in Breast Cancer Working Group. Assessment of Ki67 in breast cancer: recommendations from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer working group. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011; 103(22): 1656-64.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djr393] [PMID: 21960707]
[21]
Schrading S, Kuhl CK. Mammographic, US, and MR imaging phenotypes of familial breast cancer. Radiology 2008; 246(1): 58-70.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2461062173] [PMID: 18096529]
[22]
Malherbe K, Bresser P. Association between ultrasound morphologic features and histopathological findings of lobular carcinoma. J Med Radiat Sci 2019; 66(3): 177-83.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.336] [PMID: 31472006]
[23]
Ha SM, Chae EY, Cha JH, Kim HH, Shin HJ, Choi WJ. Association of BRCA mutation types, imaging features, and pathologic findings in patients with breast cancer with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2017; 209(4): 920-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.16957] [PMID: 28796549]
[24]
An YY, Kim SH, Kang BJ, Park CS, Jung NY, Kim JY. Breast cancer in very young women (<30 years): Correlation of imaging features with clinicopathological features and immunohistochemical subtypes. Eur J Radiol 2015; 84(10): 1894-902.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.07.002] [PMID: 26198117]
[25]
Cho N. Molecular subtypes and imaging phenotypes of breast cancer. Ultrasonography 2016; 35(4): 281-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.14366/usg.16030] [PMID: 27599892]
[26]
Shin HJ, Kim HH, Huh MO, et al. Correlation between mammographic and sonographic findings and prognostic factors in patients with node-negative invasive breast cancer. Br J Radiol 2011; 84(997): 19-30.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr/92960562] [PMID: 20682592]
[27]
Elias SG, Adams A, Wisner DJ, et al. Imaging features of HER2 overexpression in breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2014; 23(8): 1464-83.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-1170] [PMID: 24807204]
[28]
Dogan BE, Turnbull LW. Imaging of triple-negative breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2012; 23(Suppl. 6): vi23-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mds191] [PMID: 23012298]
[29]
Uematsu T, Kasami M, Yuen S. Triple-negative breast cancer: correlation between MR imaging and pathologic findings. Radiology 2009; 250(3): 638-47.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2503081054] [PMID: 19244039]

Rights & Permissions Print Cite
Article Metrics
30
2
© 2024 Bentham Science Publishers | Privacy Policy