Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 8/2012

01-08-2012 | Breast

Triple-negative invasive breast cancer on dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR imaging: comparison with other breast cancer subtypes

Authors: Ji Hyun Youk, Eun Ju Son, Jin Chung, Jeong-Ah Kim, Eun-kyung Kim

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 8/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To determine the MRI features of triple-negative invasive breast cancer (TNBC) on dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging (DCE-MRI) and diffusion-weighted MR imaging (DWI) in comparison with ER-positive/HER2-negative (ER+) and HER2-positive cancer (HER2+).

Methods

A total of 271 invasive cancers in 269 patients undergoing preoperative MRI and surgery were included. Two radiologists retrospectively assessed morphological and kinetic characteristics on DCE-MRI and tumour detectability on DWI. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values of lesions were measured. Clinical and MRI features of the three subtypes were compared.

Results

Compared with ER+ (n = 119) and HER2+ (n = 94), larger size, round/oval mass shape, smooth mass margin, and rim enhancement on DCE-MRI were significantly associated with TNBC (n = 58; P < 0.0001). On DWI, mean ADC value (×10−3 mm2/s) of TNBC (1.03) was higher than the mean ADC values for ER+ and HER2+ (0.89 and 0.84; P < 0.0001). There was no difference in tumour detectability (P = 0.099). Tumour size (P = 0.009), mass margin (smooth, P < 0.0001; irregular, P = 0.020), and ADC values (P = 0.002) on DCE-MRI and DWI were independent features of TNBC.

Conclusions

In addition to the morphological features, higher ADC values on DWI were independently associated with TNBC and could be useful in differentiating TNBC from ER+ and HER2+.

Key Points

• Triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC) lack oestrogen/progesterone receptors and HER2 expression/amplification.
• TNBCs are larger, better defined and more necrotic than conventional cancers.
• On MRI, necrosis yields high T2-weighted signal intensity and ADCs.
• High ADC values can be useful in diagnosing TNBC.
Literature
1.
Yamamoto Y, Iwase H (2010) Clinicopathological features and treatment strategy for triple-negative breast cancer. Int J Clin Oncol 15:341–351PubMedCrossRef
2.
de Ronde JJ, Hannemann J, Halfwerk H et al (2010) Concordance of clinical and molecular breast cancer subtyping in the context of preoperative chemotherapy response. Breast Cancer Res Treat 119:119–126PubMedCrossRef
3.
Denley H, Pinder SE, Elston CW, Lee AH, Ellis IO (2001) Preoperative assessment of prognostic factors in breast cancer. J Clin Pathol 54:20–24PubMedCrossRef
4.
Montagna E, Bagnardi V, Rotmensz N et al (2011) Immunohistochemically defined subtypes and outcome in occult breast carcinoma with axillary presentation. Breast Cancer Res Treat 129:867–875PubMedCrossRef
5.
Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R et al (2001) Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98:10869–10874PubMedCrossRef
6.
Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB et al (2000) Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 406:747–752PubMedCrossRef
7.
Li SP, Padhani AR, Taylor NJ et al (2011) Vascular characterisation of triple negative breast carcinomas using dynamic MRI. Eur Radiol 21:1364–1373PubMedCrossRef
8.
van de Vijver MJ, He YD, van’t Veer LJ et al (2002) A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347:1999–2009PubMedCrossRef
9.
Desmedt C, Haibe-Kains B, Wirapati P et al (2008) Biological processes associated with breast cancer clinical outcome depend on the molecular subtypes. Clin Cancer Res 14:5158–5165PubMedCrossRef
10.
Sanchez-Munoz A, Garcia-Tapiador AM, Martinez-Ortega E et al (2008) Tumour molecular subtyping according to hormone receptors and HER2 status defines different pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced breast cancer. Clin Transl Oncol 10:646–653PubMedCrossRef
11.
Elsawaf Z, Sinn HP (2011) Triple-negative breast cancer: clinical and histological correlations. Breast Care (Basel) 6:273–278
12.
Ko ES, Lee BH, Kim HA, Noh WC, Kim MS, Lee SA (2010) Triple-negative breast cancer: correlation between imaging and pathological findings. Eur Radiol 20:1111–1117PubMedCrossRef
13.
Dogan BE, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Gilcrease M, Dryden MJ, Yang WT (2010) Multimodality imaging of triple receptor-negative tumors with mammography, ultrasound, and MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:1160–1166PubMedCrossRef
14.
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 111:405–410PubMedCrossRef
15.
Whitman GJ, Albarracin CT, Gonzalez-Angulo AM (2011) Triple-negative breast cancer: what the radiologist needs to know. Semin Roentgenol 46:26–39PubMedCrossRef
16.
Chen JH, Agrawal G, Feig B et al (2007) Triple-negative breast cancer: MRI features in 29 patients. Ann Oncol 18:2042–2043PubMedCrossRef
17.
Uematsu T, Kasami M, Yuen S (2009) Triple-negative breast cancer: correlation between MR imaging and pathologic findings. Radiology 250:638–647PubMedCrossRef
18.
Podo F, Buydens LM, Degani H et al (2010) Triple-negative breast cancer: present challenges and new perspectives. Mol Oncol 4:209–229PubMedCrossRef
19.
Woodhams R, Kakita S, Hata H et al (2010) Identification of residual breast carcinoma following neoadjuvant chemotherapy: diffusion-weighted imaging – comparison with contrast-enhanced MR imaging and pathologic findings. Radiology 254:357–366PubMedCrossRef
20.
Allred DC, Harvey JM, Berardo M, Clark GM (1998) Prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer by immunohistochemical analysis. Mod Pathol 11:155–168PubMed
21.
Moeder CB, Giltnane JM, Harigopal M et al (2007) Quantitative justification of the change from 10 % to 30 % for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 scoring in the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guidelines: tumor heterogeneity in breast cancer and its implications for tissue microarray based assessment of outcome. J Clin Oncol 25:5418–5425PubMedCrossRef
22.
American College of Radiology (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system-magnetic resonance imaging. In: American College of Radiology (ed) Breast imaging reporting and data system, 4th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston, pp 1–114
23.
Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S et al (1999) Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 211:101–110PubMed
24.
Koh DM, Collins DJ, Orton MR (2011) Intravoxel incoherent motion in body diffusion-weighted MRI: reality and challenges. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:1351–1361PubMedCrossRef
25.
Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasy CA et al (2006) Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina breast cancer study. JAMA 295:2492–2502PubMedCrossRef
26.
Dent R, Trudeau M, Pritchard KI et al (2007) Triple-negative breast cancer: clinical features and patterns of recurrence. Clin Cancer Res 13:4429–4434PubMedCrossRef
27.
Anders C, Carey LA (2008) Understanding and treating triple-negative breast cancer. Oncology (Williston Park) 22:1233–1239
28.
Arnedos M, Nerurkar A, Osin P, A'Hern R, Smith IE, Dowsett M (2009) Discordance between core needle biopsy (CNB) and excisional biopsy (EB) for estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR) and HER2 status in early breast cancer (EBC). Ann Oncol 20:1948–1952PubMedCrossRef
29.
Lorgis V, Algros MP, Villanueva C et al (2011) Discordance in early breast cancer for tumour grade, estrogen receptor, progesterone receptors and human epidermal receptor-2 status between core needle biopsy and surgical excisional primary tumour. Breast 20:284–287PubMedCrossRef
30.
Tamaki K, Sasano H, Ishida T et al (2010) Comparison of core needle biopsy (CNB) and surgical specimens for accurate preoperative evaluation of ER, PgR and HER2 status of breast cancer patients. Cancer Sci 101:2074–2079PubMedCrossRef
31.
Pal SK, Childs BH, Pegram M (2011) Triple negative breast cancer: unmet medical needs. Breast Cancer Res Treat 125:627–636PubMedCrossRef
32.
Pereira FP, Martins G, de Oliveira C, Rde V (2011) Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging of the breast. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 19:95–110PubMedCrossRef
33.
Hamstra DA, Rehemtulla A, Ross BD (2007) Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging: a biomarker for treatment response in oncology. J Clin Oncol 25:4104–4109PubMedCrossRef
34.
Tsushima Y, Takahashi-Taketomi A, Endo K (2009) Magnetic resonance (MR) differential diagnosis of breast tumors using apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) on 1.5-T. J Magn Reson Imaging 30:249–255PubMedCrossRef
35.
Kim SH, Cha ES, Kim HS et al (2009) Diffusion-weighted imaging of breast cancer: correlation of the apparent diffusion coefficient value with prognostic factors. J Magn Reson Imaging 30:615–620PubMedCrossRef
36.
Guo Y, Cai YQ, Cai ZL et al (2002) Differentiation of clinically benign and malignant breast lesions using diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 16:172–178PubMedCrossRef
37.
Razek AA, Gaballa G, Denewer A, Nada N (2010) Invasive ductal carcinoma: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient value with pathological prognostic factors. NMR Biomed 23:619–623PubMedCrossRef
38.
Costantini M, Belli P, Rinaldi P et al (2010) Diffusion-weighted imaging in breast cancer: relationship between apparent diffusion coefficient and tumour aggressiveness. Clin Radiol 65:1005–1012PubMedCrossRef
39.
Padhani AR, Liu G, Koh DM et al (2009) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations. Neoplasia 11:102–125PubMed
40.
Park SH, Moon WK, Cho N et al (2010) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging: pretreatment prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. Radiology 257:56–63PubMedCrossRef
41.
Jeh SK, Kim SH, Kim HS et al (2011) Correlation of the apparent diffusion coefficient value and dynamic magnetic resonance imaging findings with prognostic factors in invasive ductal carcinoma. J Magn Reson Imaging 33:102–109PubMedCrossRef
42.
Matsuoka A, Minato M, Harada M et al (2008) Comparison of 3.0- and 1.5-Tesla diffusion-weighted imaging in the visibility of breast cancer. Radiat Med 26:15–20PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Triple-negative invasive breast cancer on dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR imaging: comparison with other breast cancer subtypes
Authors
Ji Hyun Youk
Eun Ju Son
Jin Chung
Jeong-Ah Kim
Eun-kyung Kim
Publication date
01-08-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 8/2012
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2425-2

Other articles of this Issue 8/2012

European Radiology 8/2012 Go to the issue

Interventional

Percutaneous MR-guided cryoablation of prostate cancer: initial experience

Oncology

Assessment of the metabolic flow phenotype of primary colorectal cancer: correlations with microvessel density are influenced by the histological scoring method

Contrast Media

Quantitative evaluation of MR perfusion imaging using blood pool contrast agent in subjects without pulmonary diseases and in patients with pulmonary embolism

Chest

Chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis: high resolution computed tomography patterns and pulmonary function indices as prognostic determinants

Cardiac

DNA double-strand breaks as potential indicators for the biological effects of ionising radiation exposure from cardiac CT and conventional coronary angiography: a randomised, controlled study

Contrast Media

Arterial input function calculation in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: an in vivo validation study using co-registered contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging