Journals / Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology / 2015 / Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 6

The role of ultrasonographic findings to predict molecular subtype, histologic grade, and hormone receptor status of breast cancer

Pages
448–453
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These findings may separate triple-negative breast cancer from other molecular subtypes.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:PURPOSE The correlation between imaging findings and pathologic characteristics of tumors may provide information for diagnosis and treatment of cancer.
📊
Key Findings & Data:METHODSA total of 201 consecutive invasive breast cancer patients were reviewed from the database accord-ing to the Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System (BI-RADS).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These findings may separate triple-negative breast cancer from other molecular subtypes.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

PURPOSE The correlation between imaging findings and pathologic characteristics of tumors may provide information for diagnosis and treatment of cancer. The aim of this study is to determine whether ultrasound features of breast cancer are associated with molecular subtype, histologic grade, and hormone receptor status, as well as assess the predictive value of these features. METHODSA total of 201 consecutive invasive breast cancer patients were reviewed from the database accord-ing to the Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System (BI-RADS). Tumor margins were classified as circumscribed and noncircumscribed. Noncircumscribed group was divided into indistinct, spiculat-ed, angular, and microlobulated. The posterior acoustic features were divided into four categories: shadowing, enhancement, no change, and mixed pattern. RESULTSTumors with posterior shadowing were more likely to be of nontriple negative subtype (odds ratio [OR], 7.42; 95% CI, 2.10-24.99; P = 0.002), low histologic grade (grade 1 or 2 vs. grade 3: OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.34-4.35; P = 0.003) and having at least one positive receptor (OR, 3.36; 95% CI, 1.55-7.26; P = 0.002). Tumors with circumscribed margins were more often triple-negative subtype (OR, 6.72; 95% CI, 2.56-17.65; P < 0.001), high grade (grade 3 vs. grade 1 or 2: OR, 5.42; 95% CI, 2.66-11.00; P < 0.001) and hormone receptor negative (OR, 4.87; 95% CI, 2.37-9.99; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONSonographic features are strongly associated with molecular subtype, histologic grade, and hormone receptor status of the tumor. These findings may separate triple-negative breast cancer from other molecular subtypes.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇELEBİ, F., PİLANCI, K. N., ORDU, Ç., AĞACAYAK, F., ALÇO, G., İLGÜN, S., SARSENOV, D., ERDOĞAN, Z., ÖZMEN, V. (2015). The role of ultrasonographic findings to predict molecular subtype, histologic grade, and hormone receptor status of breast cancer. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 6, 448–453. https://ajindex.com/articles/209731

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (3)

  1. Yaganawa M, Ikemot K, Kawauchi S, et al. Lumi- nal A and Luminal B (HER2 negative) subtypes of breast cancer consist of a mixture of tumors with different genotype. BMC Res Notes 2012; 5:376. [CrossRef] Irshad A, Leddy R, Pisano E, et al. Assessing the role of ultrasound in predicting the biological behavior of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentge- nol 2013; 200:284-290. [CrossRef] Blaichman J, Marcus JC, Alsaadi T, et al. Sono- graphic appearance of ductal carcinoma of the breast according to histologic grade. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012; 199:W402-W408. [CrossRef] Reis-Filho JS, Simpson PT, Gale T, et al. Molec- ular evolution of breast cancer. J Pathol 2005; 205:248-254. [CrossRef] Bosch A, Eroles P, Zaragoza R, et al. Triple nega- tive breast cancer: Molecular features, patho- genesis, treatment and current lines of research. Cancer Treat Rev 2010; 36:206-215. [CrossRef] Levy L, Suissa M, Chiche JF, Teman G, Martin B. BIRADS ultrasonography. Eur J Radiol 2007; 61:202-211. [CrossRef] Costantini M, Belli P, Lombardi R, et al. Charac- terization of solid breast masses use of the so- nographic breast imaging reporting and data system lexicon. J Ultrasound Med 2006; 25:649. Bloom HJG, Richarson WW. Histologic grading and prognosis in breast cancer: A study of 1709 cases of which 359 have been followed for 15 years. Br J Cancer 1957; 11:353-377. Viale G. The current state of breast cancer classi- fication. Ann Oncol 2012; 23(Suppl 10):207-210.
  2. Elsawaf Z, Sinn HS, Rom J, et al. Biological sub- types of triple negative breast cancer are asso- ciated with distinct morphological changes and clinical behavior. The Breast 2013; 22:986-992. [CrossRef] Rotstein AH, Neerhut PK. Ultrasound character- istics of histologically proven grade 3 invasive ductal breast carcinoma. Australas Radiol 2005; 49:476-479. [CrossRef] Skaane P, Engedal K. Analysis of sonographic features in the differentiation of fibroadeno- ma and invasive ductal carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 170:109-114. [CrossRef] Aho M, Irshad A, Ackerman SJ. Correlation of sono- graphic features of invasive ductal carcinoma with age, tumor grade, and hormone-receptor status. J Clin Ultrasound 2013; 41:10-17. [CrossRef] Weinstein SP, Conant EF, Mies C, et al. Posterior acoustic shadowing in benign breast lesions: sonographic-pathologic correlation. J Ultra- sound Med 2004; 23:73-83.
  3. Lamb PM, Perry NM, Vinnicombe SJ, et al. Cor- relation between ultrasound characteristics, mammographic findings and histological grade