Top

Published in:

01-08-2022 | Breast Cancer | Original Article

Imaging Features of Breast Cancer Subtypes on Mammography and Ultrasonography: an Analysis of 479 Patients

Authors: Vishnu Prasad Pulappadi, Ekta Dhamija, Akhil Baby, Sandeep Mathur, Shivam Pandey, Ajay Gogia, S. V. S. Deo

Published in: Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology | Issue 4/2022

Abstract

To compare features of clinically defined subtypes of breast cancer on mammography (MG) and ultrasonography (USG). After obtaining approval from the institute ethics committee, a retrospective observational study was performed on biopsy-proven breast cancer patients who underwent baseline MG from 2016 to 2020. MG and USG features were evaluated and the patients were classified based on immunohistochemistry profile into luminal like (LL)-oestrogen receptor (ER)/progesterone receptor (PR) + , Her2neu-; basal like (BL)-ER/PR-, Her2neu-; Her2 like (HL)-Her2neu + . A total of 479 patients (mean age, 51.4 ± 11.7 years; all females) were included: LL—198 (41.3%), BL—121 (25.2%) and HL—160 (33.3%). On MG, round shape (21/115, 18.3%, p < 0.001); circumscribed (16/115, 13.9%, p < 0.001) and microlobulated margins (28/115, 24.4%) were associated with BL tumours. Associated suspicious calcifications (96/160, 60%, p < 0.001) and skin thickening or retraction (75/149, 50.3%, p < 0.001) were more common in HL. On USG, round shape (12/95, 12.8%, p = 0.005); circumscribed (8/94, 8.5%) and microlobulated margins (44/94, 46.8%) and posterior acoustic enhancement (7/95, 7.5%, p = 0.012) were associated with BL. The logistic regression analysis revealed that spiculated margins on MG favoured LL (OR: 8.5, p = 0.001); round shape (OR: 6.8), circumscribed (OR: 10.8) or microlobulated margins (OR: 3.5) (p < 0.001 for each) favoured BL; whereas associated features of calcifications (OR: 3.3) (p = 0.019) and skin retraction or thickening (OR: 1.8) (p < 0.001) favoured HL. On USG, circumscribed (OR: 5.9, p = 0.005) or microlobulated margins (OR: 3, p < 0.001) and posterior acoustic enhancement (OR: 9.5, p = 0.006) favoured BL. Clinically defined subtypes of breast cancer show significant differences in the imaging appearances on mammography and USG. BL tumours may not show the typical imaging features of malignancy, necessitating clinicopathological correlation for accurate diagnosis.

Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A (2018) Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 68:394–424CrossRef

Elmore JG, Longton GM, Carney PA et al (2015) Diagnostic concordance among pathologists interpreting breast biopsy specimens. JAMA 313:1122–1132CrossRef

D’Orsi C, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, Morris EA (2013) Breast imaging reporting and data system: ACR BI-RADS breast imaging atlas. 5th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology

Parker JS, Mullins M, Cheang MCU et al (2009) Supervised risk predictor of breast cancer based on intrinsic subtypes. J Clin Oncol 27:1160–1167CrossRef

Hortobagyi GN, Connolly JL, D’Orsi CJ, Edge SB, Mittendorf EA, Rugo HS (2017) Breast. In: Amin M. B, Edge S, Greene F, eds. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 8th ed. New York: Springer. pp. 589–636

Goldstein NS, Decker D, Severson D et al (2007) Molecular classification system identifies invasive breast carcinoma patients who are most likely and those who are least likely to achieve a complete pathologic response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer 110:1687–1696CrossRef

Dent R, Trudeau M, Pritchard KI et al (2007) Triple-negative breast cancer: clinical features and patterns of recurrence. Clin Cancer Res 13:4429–4434CrossRef

Slamon DJ, Clark GM, Wong SG, Levin WJ, Ullrich A, McGuire WL (1987) Human breast cancer: correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the HER2-2/neu oncogene. Science 235:177–182CrossRef

Slamon DJ, Leyland-Jones B, Shak S et al (2001) Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses HER2. N Engl J Med 344:783–792CrossRef

10.

Perez EA, Romond EH, Suman VJ et al (2014) Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive breast cancer: planned joint analysis of overall survival from NSABP B-31 and NCCTG N9831. J Clin Oncol 32:3744–3752CrossRef

11.

Jan M, Mattoo JA, Salroo NA, Ahangar S (2010) Triple assessment in the diagnosis of breast cancer in Kashmir. Indian J Surg 72:97–103CrossRef

12.

Lee SH, Chang JM, Shin SU et al (2017) Imaging features of breast cancers on digital breast tomosynthesis according to molecular subtype: association with breast cancer detection. Br J Radiol 90:20170470CrossRef

13.

Rashmi S, Kamala S, Murthy SS, Kotha S, Rao YS, Chaudhary KV (2018) Predicting the molecular subtype of breast cancer based on mammography and ultrasound findings. Indian J Radiol Imaging 28:354–361CrossRef

14.

Cai S, Yao M, Cai D et al (2019) Association between digital breast tomosynthesis and molecular subtypes of breast cancer. Oncol Lett 17:2669–2676

15.

Sohn Y-M, Han K, Seo M. Immunohistochemical subtypes of breast cancer: correlation with clinicopathological and radiological factors. Iran J Radiol [Internet] 2016; 13:e31386. Cited January 2020. Available from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5116817/

16.

Wu M, Ma J (2017) Association between imaging characteristics and different molecular subtypes of breast cancer. Acad Radiol 24:426–434CrossRef

17.

Zheng F-Y, Lu Q, Huang B-J et al (2017) Imaging features of automated breast volume scanner: correlation with molecular subtypes of breast cancer. Eur J Radiol 86:267–275CrossRef

18.

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

19.

Yang W-T, Dryden M, Broglio K et al (2008) Mammographic features of triple receptor-negative primary breast cancers in young premenopausal women. Breast Cancer Res Treat 111:405–410CrossRef

20.

Boisserie-Lacroix M, MacGrogan G, Debled M et al (2013) Triple-negative breast cancers: associations between imaging and pathological findings for triple-negative tumors compared with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative breast cancers. Oncologist 18:802–811CrossRef

21.

Wojcinski S, Soliman AA, Schmidt J, Makowski L, Degenhardt F, Hillemanns P (2012) Sonographic features of triple-negative and non-triple-negative breast cancer. J Ultrasound Med 31:1531–1541CrossRef

22.

Wu T, Li J, Wang D et al (2019) Identification of a correlation between the sonographic appearance and molecular subtype of invasive breast cancer: a review of 311 cases. Clin Imaging 53:179–185CrossRef

23.

Au FW-F, Ghai S, Lu F-I, Moshonov H, Crystal P. (2017) Histological grade and immunohistochemical biomarkers of breast cancer: correlation to ultrasound features. J Ultrasound Med 36:1883–1894

24.

Gao B, Zhang H, Zhang S-D et al (2014) Mammographic and clinicopathological features of triple-negative breast cancer. Br J Radiol 87:20130496CrossRef

25.

Kim MY, Choi N (2013) Mammographic and ultrasonographic features of triple-negative breast cancer: a comparison with other breast cancer subtypes. Acta Radiol 54:889–894CrossRef

26.

Irshad A, Leddy R, Pisano E, Baker N, Lewis M, Ackerman S et al (2013) Assessing the role of ultrasound in predicting the biological behavior of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:284–290CrossRef

27.

Seo BK, Pisano ED, Kuzimak CM et al (2006) Correlation of HER-2/neu overexpression with mammography and age distribution in primary breast carcinomas. Acad Radiol 13:1211–1218CrossRef

28.

Koo MM, von Wagner C, Abel GA, McPhail S, Rubin GP, Lyratzopoulos G (2017) Typical and atypical presenting symptoms of breast cancer and their associations with diagnostic intervals: evidence from a national audit of cancer diagnosis. Cancer Epidemiol 48:140–146CrossRef

Title: Imaging Features of Breast Cancer Subtypes on Mammography and Ultrasonography: an Analysis of 479 Patients
Authors: Vishnu Prasad Pulappadi
Ekta Dhamija
Akhil Baby
Sandeep Mathur
Shivam Pandey
Ajay Gogia
S. V. S. Deo
Publication date: 01-08-2022
Publisher: Springer India
Keywords: Breast Cancer
Mammography
Breast Cancer
Mammography
Published in: Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology / Issue 4/2022
Print ISSN: 0975-7651
Electronic ISSN: 0976-6952
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13193-022-01606-7

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Imaging Features of Breast Cancer Subtypes on Mammography and Ultrasonography: an Analysis of 479 Patients

Abstract

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2022

Gastric Gastro-intestinal Stromal Tumour Presenting as an Acute Perforation Peritonitis in a Young Male

Modified Preauricular Cervico-facial Approach for Oral Cancers: an Analysis of Oncological and Functional Outcomes

Predictive Factors for Unnecessary Axillary Dissection According to SLN Metastasis in T1, T2 Stage Breast Cancer

Anti-cancer Activity of Chrysin in Cancer Therapy: a Systematic Review

Comparative Analysis of Trifecta Outcomes in Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy for cT1a Versus cT1b + Renal Tumours—a Single-Centre Study

Solid Pseudopapillary Neoplasm — Case Series and Review of Literature