Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention (아시아태평양암예방학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Associations Between Mammography and Ultrasound Imaging Features and Molecular Characteristics of Triple-negative Breast Cancer

  • Li, Bo (Department of Ultrasound, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University) ;
  • Zhao, Xin (Department of Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University) ;
  • Dai, Shao-Chun (Department of Ultrasound, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University) ;
  • Cheng, Wen (Department of Ultrasound, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University)
  • Published : 2014.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: The triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive cancer characterized by the absence of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). Preoperative mammography and ultrasound features of TNBC may potentially suggest characteristics of the disease and assist in treatment decisions. Materials and Methods: The study covered 153 patients with TNBC from May 2011 to May 2012 who were confirmed by postoperative pathology results in our hospital. We compared the radiological findings among the patients and sought to determine the significant iconographic features. The biomarkers p53 and Ki-67 are regarded as significant factors in TNBC. They were therefore used to divide the TNBC into four groups for assessment of relationships with TNBC imaging features. Results: On mammography, most TNBCs exhibit obscure (44.3%) masses. On ultrasound, the majority of masses (95.4%) were predominantly indistinct (50.7%), irregular (76.0%) or featuring posterior echo enhancement/shadowing. Color Doppler flow imaging (CDFI) emphasized hypervascular (32.9%) masses. Differences in CDFI by ultrasound among the four groups were statistically significant (p=0.009). There were obvious differences in the percentages of spiculated margin (p=0.049) and intensive posterior echo (p=0.006) with spotty flow imaging by ultrasound between the Ki-67 (+) p53 (+) and other groups. Conclusions: A combination of mammography and ultrasound revealed the imaging characteristics of TNBC included an obscure mass with less attenuated posterior echoes and some vascularity. A worse prognosis was associated with spiculated margin and intensive posterior echoes with spotty flow imaging.

Keywords

References

  1. Bottini A, Berruti A, Bersiga A, et al (2001). Relationship between tumour shrinkage and reduction in Ki67 expression after primary chemotherapy in human breast cancer. Br J Cancer, 85, 1106-12. https://doi.org/10.1054/bjoc.2001.2048
  2. Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasy CA, et al (2006). Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study. JAMA, 295, 2492-502. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.21.2492
  3. Chae BJ, Bae JS, Lee A, et al (2009). p53 as a specific prognostic factor in triple-negative breast cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol, 39, 217-24. https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyp007
  4. Claus EB, Petruzella S, Matloff E, Carter D (2005). Prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ. JAMA, 293, 964-9. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.293.8.964
  5. Cleator S, Heller W, Coombes RC (2007). Triple-negative breast cancer: therapeutic options. Lancet Oncol, 8, 235-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(07)70074-8
  6. Crook T, Crossland S, Crompton MR, Osin P, Gusterson BA (1997). p53 mutations in BRCA1-associated familial breast cancer. Lancet, 350, 638-9.
  7. Dogan BE, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Gilcrease M, Dryden MJ, Yang WT (2010). Multimodality imaging of triple receptornegative tumors with mammography, ultrasound, and MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 194, 1160-6. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.2355
  8. Doreen C, Donovan A (2011). Triple negative breast cancer: therapeutic and prognostic implications. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 12, 2129-33.
  9. Foulkes WD, Smith IE, Reis-Filho JS (2010). Triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med, 363, 1938-48. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1001389
  10. Itoh A, Ueno E, Tohno E, et al (2006). Breast disease: clinical application of US elastography for diagnosis. Radiology, 239, 341-50. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2391041676
  11. Keam B, Im SA, Lee KH, et al (2011). Ki-67 can be used for further classification of triple negative breast cancer into two subtypes with different response and prognosis. Breast Cancer Res, 13, 22.
  12. Kim MJ, Ro JY, Ahn SH, et al (2006). Clinicopathologic significance of the basal-like subtype of breast cancer: a comparison with hormone receptor and Her2/neuoverexpressing phenotypes. Hum Pathol, 37, 1217-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2006.04.015
  13. Lerma E, Peiro G, Ramon T, et al (2007). Immunohistochemical heterogeneity of breast carcinomas negative for estrogen receptors, progesterone receptors and Her2/neu (basal-like breast carcinomas). Mod Pathol, 20, 1200-7. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.3800961
  14. Li CY, Zhang S, Zhang XB, et al (2013). Clinicopathological and prognostic characteristics of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in Chinese patients: a retrospective study. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 3779-84. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.6.3779
  15. Ma H, Luo J, Press MF, et al (2009). Is there a difference in the association between percent mammographic density and subtypes of breast cancer? Luminal A and triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 18, 479-85. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0805
  16. Noguchi S, Kasugai T, Miki Y, et al (1999). Clinicopathologic analysis of BRCA-1 or BRCA-2 associated hereditary breast carcinoma in Japanese women. Cancer, 85, 2200-5. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19990515)85:10<2200::AID-CNCR14>3.0.CO;2-S
  17. Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB, et al (2000). Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature, 406, 747-52. https://doi.org/10.1038/35021093
  18. Phipps AI, Buist DS, Malone KE, et al (2012). Breast density, body mass index, and risk of tumor marker-defined subtypes of breast cancer. Ann Epidemiol, 22, 340-8.
  19. Reis-Filho JS, Tutt AN (2008). Triple negative tumours: a critical review. Histopathology, 52, 108-18.
  20. Sachdev JC, Ahmed S, Mirza MM, et al (2010). Does race affect outcomes in triple negative breast cancer? Breast Cancer (Auckl), 4, 23-33.
  21. Somali I, Ustaoglu BY, Tarhan MO, et al (2013). Clinicopathologic and demographic evaluation of triple- negative breast cancer patients among a turkish patient population: a single center experience. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 6013-7. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.10.6013
  22. Tang J, Wu CC, Xie ZM, Luo RZ, Yang MT (2011). Comparison of Clinical Features and Treatment Outcome of Breast Cancers in Young and Elderly Chinese Patients. Breast Care (Basel), 6, 435-40. https://doi.org/10.1159/000332593
  23. Yang WT, Dryden M, Broglio K, et al (2008). Mammographic features of triple receptor-negative primary breast cancers in young premenopausal women. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 111, 405-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-007-9810-6

Cited by

  1. The Values of Combined and Sub-Stratified Imaging Scores with Ultrasonography and Mammography in Breast Cancer Subtypes vol.10, pp.12, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145390
  2. Clinically determined type of 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose uptake as an alternative prognostic marker in resectable pancreatic cancer vol.12, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172606