Top

Published in:

01-12-2013 | Breast

Imaging features of sporadic breast cancer in women under 40 years old: 97 cases

Authors: Bénédicte Bullier, Gaétan MacGrogan, Hervé Bonnefoi, Gabrielle Hurtevent-Labrot, Edouard Lhomme, Véronique Brouste, Martine Boisserie-Lacroix

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 12/2013

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate characteristic features of mammography, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of sporadic breast cancer in women <40 years and to determine correlations with pathological and biological factors.

Methods

A retrospective review of radiological, clinicopathological and biological features of sporadic breast cancers for women under 40 years at our institution between 2007-2012 covering 91 patients. Mammography was available for 97 lesions, ultrasound for 94 and MRI for 38.

Results

The most common imaging features were masses, nearly all classified BI-RADS 4 or 5. On mammography microcalcifications alone accounted for 31 %, all suspicious. There were 42.6 % luminal B, 24.5 % luminal A, 19.1 % HER2-enriched and 10.6 % triple-negative (TN) tumours by immunohistochemistry. HER2 overexpression was correlated with the presence of calcifications at mammography (P = 0.03). TN cancers more often had an oval shape and abrupt interface at ultrasound and rim enhancement on MRI. MRI features were suspicious for all cancers and rim enhancement of a mass was a significant predictor of triple-negative tumours (P = 0.01).

Conclusions

The imaging characteristics of cancers in patients under 40 years without proven gene mutations do not differ from their older counterparts, but appear correlated to phenotypic profiles, which have a different distribution in young women compared to the general population.

Key Points

• Young women have more luminal B/HER2+ phenotypes than older women.

• The appearance of cancers is correlated with their biological profiles.

• Sporadic breast cancer imaging in young women is generally classified BI-RADS 4/5.

• Triple-negative cancers can be misinterpreted as benign, requiring thorough imaging analysis.

Kheirelseid EH, Boggs JM, Curran C et al (2011) Younger age as a prognostic indicator in breast cancer: a cohort study. BMC Cancer 11:383–389PubMedCrossRef

Ries A, Eisner M, Kosary C et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2002, Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2002/, based on November 2004 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site 2005 (accessed 5 March 2013)

Cardoso F, Loibl S, Pagani O et al (2012) The European society of breast cancer specialists recommendations for the management of young women with breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 48:3355–3377PubMedCrossRef

Lehman CD, Lee CI, Loving VA, Portillo MS, Peacock S, DeMartini WB (2012) Accuracy and value of breast ultrasound for primary imaging evaluation of symptomatic women 30-39 years of age. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:1169–1177PubMedCrossRef

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force et al (2002) Screening for breast cancer: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med 137:344–346CrossRef

Perry NM, Patani N, Milner SE et al (2011) The impact of digital mammography on screening a young cohort of women for breast cancer in an urban specialist breast unit. Eur Radiol 21:676–682PubMedCrossRef

Yankaskas BC, Haneuse S, Kapp JM, Kerlikowske K, Geller B, Buist DS (2010) Performance of first mammography examination in women younger than 40 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 102:692–701PubMedCrossRef

An YY, Kim SH, Kang BJ (2012) Characteristic features and usefulness of MRI in breast cancer in patients under 40 years old: correlations with conventional imaging and prognostic factors. Breast Cancer. doi:10.1007/s12282-012-0383-9, Epub ahead of print

Foxcroft LM, Evans EB, Porter AJ (2004) The diagnosis of breast cancer in women younger than 40. Breast 13:297–306PubMedCrossRef

10.

Saarenmaa I, Salminen T, Geiger U et al (2001) The effect of age and density of the breast on the sensitivity of breast cancer diagnostic by mammography and ultasonography. Breast Cancer Res Treat 67:117–123PubMedCrossRef

11.

Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB et al (2000) Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 406:747–752PubMedCrossRef

12.

MacGrogan G, Soubeyran I, de Mascarel I et al (1996) Immunohistochemical detection of progesterone receptors in breast invasive ductal carcinomas: a correlative study of 942 cases. Appl Immunohistochem 4:219–227

13.

Cheang MC, Chia SK, Voduc D et al (2009) Ki67 index, HER2 status, and prognosis of patients with luminal B breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 101:736–750PubMedCrossRef

14.

American College of Radiology (ACR). ACR Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas. 2003.

15.

Berg WA, Cosgrove DO, Dore CJ et al (2012) Shear-wave elastography improves the specificity of breast US: the BE1 multinational study of 939 masses. Radiology 262:435–449PubMedCrossRef

16.

Smith RA, Saslow D, Sawyer KA et al (2003) American cancer society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 53:141–169PubMedCrossRef

17.

Kwong A, Cheung P, Chan S, Lau S (2008) Breast cancer in Chinese women younger than age 40: are they different from their older counterparts? World J Surg 32:2554–2561PubMedCrossRef

18.

Zadelis S, Houssami N (2003) Mammographic features of breast cancer in young symptomatic women. Australas Radiol 47:404–408PubMedCrossRef

19.

Collins LC, Marotti JD, Gelber S et al (2012) Pathologic features and molecular phenotype by patient age in a large cohort of young women with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 131:1061–1066PubMedCrossRef

20.

Caldarella A, Crocetti E, Bianchi S et al (2011) Female breast cancer status according to ER, PR and HER2 expression: a population based analysis. Pathol Oncol Res 17:753–758PubMedCrossRef

21.

Whitman GJ, Albarracin CT, Gonzalez-Angulo AM (2011) Triple-negative breast cancer: what the radiologist needs to know. Semin Roentgenol 46:26–39PubMedCrossRef

22.

Hartman AR, Kaldate RR, Sailer LM et al (2012) Prevalence of BRCA mutations in an unselected population of triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer 118:2787–2795PubMedCrossRef

23.

Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L (2008) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition--summary document. Ann Oncol 19:614–622PubMedCrossRef

24.

Yaffe MJ, Barnes GT, Orton CG (2006) Point/counterpoint. Film mammography for breast cancer screening in younger women is no longer appropriate because of the demonstrated superiority of digital mammography for this age group. Med Phys 33:3979–3982PubMedCrossRef

25.

Di Nubila B, Cassano E, Urban LA et al (2006) Radiological features and pathological-biological correlations in 348 women with breast cancer under 35 years old. Breast 15:744–753PubMedCrossRef

26.

Taneja S, Evans AJ, Rakha EA, Green AR, Ball G, Ellis IO (2008) The mammographic correlations of a new immunohistochemical classification of invasive breast cancer. Clin Radiol 63:1228–1235PubMedCrossRef

27.

Shin HJ, Kim HH, Huh MO et al (2011) Correlation between mammographic and sonographic findings and prognostic factors in patients with node-negative invasive breast cancer. Br J Radiol 84:19–30PubMedCrossRef

28.

Mesurolle B, Kadoch L, El-Khoury M, Lisbona A, Dendukuri N, Foulkes WD (2007) Sonographic features of breast carcinoma presenting as masses in BRCA gene mutation carriers. J Ultrasound Med 26:817–824PubMed

29.

Schrading S, Kuhl CK (2008) Mammographic, US, and MR imaging phenotypes of familial breast cancer. Radiology 246:58–70PubMedCrossRef

30.

Au-Yong IT, Evans AJ, Taneja S et al (2009) Sonographic correlations with the new molecular classification of invasive breast cancer. Eur Radiol 19:2342–2348PubMedCrossRef

31.

Boisserie-Lacroix M, MacGrogan G, Debled M et al (2012) Radiological features of triple-negative breast cancers (73 cases). Diagn Interv Imaging 93:183–190PubMedCrossRef

32.

Kojima Y, Tsunoda H (2011) Mammography and ultrasound features of triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer 18:146–151PubMedCrossRef

33.

Gilbert FJ, Warren RM, Kwan-Lim G et al (2009) Cancers in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers and in women at high risk for breast cancer: MR imaging and mammographic features. Radiology 252:358–368PubMedCrossRef

34.

Uematsu T, Kasami M, Yuen S (2009) Triple-negative breast cancer: correlation between MR imaging and pathologic findings. Radiology 250:638–647PubMedCrossRef

Title: Imaging features of sporadic breast cancer in women under 40 years old: 97 cases
Authors: Bénédicte Bullier
Gaétan MacGrogan
Hervé Bonnefoi
Gabrielle Hurtevent-Labrot
Edouard Lhomme
Véronique Brouste
Martine Boisserie-Lacroix
Publication date: 01-12-2013
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 12/2013
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2966-z

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Imaging features of sporadic breast cancer in women under 40 years old: 97 cases

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 12/2013

Radiation dose to procedural personnel and patients from an X-ray volume imaging system

Impact of iterative reconstruction on CT coronary calcium quantification

Locally advanced rectal cancer: diffusion-weighted MR tumour volumetry and the apparent diffusion coefficient for evaluating complete remission after preoperative chemoradiation therapy

An Editor's journey: 6 years with European Radiology

Diffusion-weighted MR imaging in primary rectal cancer staging demonstrates but does not characterise lymph nodes

Texture analysis of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) on contrast-enhanced computed tomography: prediction of the response to the first-line chemotherapy