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
Breast Cancer Research
Published in: Breast Cancer Research 1/2020

01-12-2020 | Magnetic Resonance Imaging | Research article

MRI background parenchymal enhancement, fibroglandular tissue, and mammographic breast density in patients with invasive lobular breast cancer on adjuvant endocrine hormonal treatment: associations with survival

Published in: Breast Cancer Research | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

To investigate if baseline and/or changes in contralateral background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) and fibroglandular tissue (FGT) measured on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and mammographic breast density (MD) can be used as imaging biomarkers for overall and recurrence-free survival in patients with invasive lobular carcinomas (ILCs) undergoing adjuvant endocrine treatment.

Methods

Women who fulfilled the following inclusion criteria were included in this retrospective HIPAA-compliant IRB-approved study: unilateral ILC, pre-treatment breast MRI and/or mammography from 2000 to 2010, adjuvant endocrine treatment, follow-up MRI, and/or mammography 1–2 years after treatment onset. BPE, FGT, and mammographic MD of the contralateral breast were independently graded by four dedicated breast radiologists according to BI-RADS. Associations between the baseline levels and change in levels of BPE, FGT, and MD with overall survival and recurrence-free survival were assessed using Kaplan–Meier survival curves and Cox regression analysis.

Results

Two hundred ninety-eight patients (average age = 54.1 years, range = 31–79) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The average follow-up duration was 11.8 years (range = 2–19). Baseline and change in levels of BPE, FGT, and MD were not significantly associated with recurrence-free or overall survival. Recurrence-free and overall survival were affected by histological subtype (p < 0.0001), number of metastatic axillary lymph nodes (p < 0.0001), age (p = 0.01), and adjuvant endocrine treatment duration (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Qualitative evaluation of BPE, FGT, and mammographic MD changes cannot predict which patients are more likely to benefit from adjuvant endocrine treatment.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Martinez V, Azzopardi JG. Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: incidence and variants. Histopathology. 1979;3(6):467–88.PubMed
2.
Rakha EA, Ellis IO. Lobular breast carcinoma and its variants. Semin Diagn Pathol. 2010;27(1):49–61.PubMed
3.
Iorfida M, Maiorano E, Orvieto E, Maisonneuve P, Bottiglieri L, Rotmensz N, et al. Invasive lobular breast cancer: subtypes and outcome. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;133(2):713–23.PubMed
4.
McCart Reed AE, Kutasovic JR, Lakhani SR, Simpson PT. Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: morphology, biomarkers and 'omics. Breast Cancer Res. 2015;17:12.PubMed
5.
Barroso-Sousa R, Metzger-Filho O. Differences between invasive lobular and invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast: results and therapeutic implications. Therapeutic Adv Med Oncol. 2016;8(4):261–6.
6.
Cristofanilli M, Gonzalez-Angulo A, Sneige N, Kau SW, Broglio K, Theriault RL, et al. Invasive lobular carcinoma classic type: response to primary chemotherapy and survival outcomes. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(1):41–8.PubMed
7.
Delpech Y, Coutant C, Hsu L, Barranger E, Iwamoto T, Barcenas CH, et al. Clinical benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy in oestrogen receptor-positive invasive ductal and lobular carcinomas. Br J Cancer. 2013;108(2):285–91.PubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Lips EH, Mukhtar RA, Yau C, de Ronde JJ, Livasy C, Carey LA, et al. Lobular histology and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;136(1):35–43.PubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Mathieu MC, Rouzier R, Llombart-Cussac A, Sideris L, Koscielny S, Travagli JP, et al. The poor responsiveness of infiltrating lobular breast carcinomas to neoadjuvant chemotherapy can be explained by their biological profile. Eur J Cancer (Oxford, England : 1990). 2004;40(3):342–51.
10.
Tubiana-Hulin M, Stevens D, Lasry S, Guinebretiere JM, Bouita L, Cohen-Solal C, et al. Response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in lobular and ductal breast carcinomas: a retrospective study on 860 patients from one institution. Ann Oncol. 2006;17(8):1228–33.PubMed
11.
Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Powe DG, Green AR, Habashy H, Grainge MJ, et al. Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: response to hormonal therapy and outcomes. Eur J Cancer (Oxford, England : 1990). 2008;44(1):73–83.
12.
Kim SH, Cha ES, Park CS, Kang BJ, Whang IY, Lee AW, et al. Imaging features of invasive lobular carcinoma: comparison with invasive ductal carcinoma. Jpn J Radiol. 2011;29(7):475–82.PubMed
13.
Morris E, Comstock C, Lee C, al. e. ACR BI-RADS® atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2013.
14.
Spak DA, Plaxco JS, Santiago L, Dryden MJ, Dogan BE. BI-RADS((R)) fifth edition: a summary of changes. Diagnostic Int Imaging. 2017;98(3):179–90.
15.
Kinkel K. The never-ending success story of BI-RADS. Diagnostic Int Imaging. 2017;98(3):177–8.
16.
Morris EA. Diagnostic breast MR imaging: current status and future directions. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2010;18(1):57–74.PubMed
17.
King V, Brooks JD, Bernstein JL, Reiner AS, Pike MC, Morris EA. Background parenchymal enhancement at breast MR imaging and breast cancer risk. Radiology. 2011;260(1):50–60.PubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Dontchos BN, Rahbar H, Partridge SC, Korde LA, Lam DL, Scheel JR, et al. Are qualitative assessments of background parenchymal enhancement, amount of fibroglandular tissue on MR images, and mammographic density associated with breast cancer risk? Radiology. 2015;276(2):371–80.PubMedPubMedCentral
19.
van der Velden BH, Dmitriev I, Loo CE, Pijnappel RM, Gilhuijs KG. Association between parenchymal enhancement of the contralateral breast in dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and outcome of patients with unilateral invasive breast cancer. Radiology. 2015;276(3):675–85.PubMed
20.
Preibsch H, Wanner L, Bahrs SD, Wietek BM, Siegmann-Luz KC, Oberlecher E, et al. Background parenchymal enhancement in breast MRI before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: correlation with tumour response. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(6):1590–6.PubMed
21.
Choi JS, Ko ES, Ko EY, Han BK, Nam SJ. Background parenchymal enhancement on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging: association with recurrence-free survival in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Medicine. 2016;95(9):e3000.PubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Lim Y, Ko ES, Han BK, Ko EY, Choi JS, Lee JE, et al. Background parenchymal enhancement on breast MRI: association with recurrence-free survival in patients with newly diagnosed invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;163(3):573–86.PubMed
23.
Alikhassi A, Miratashi Yazdi SN, Akbari H, Kia SA, Baikpour M. Correlation between mammographic breast density, breast tissue type in ultrasonography, fibroglandular tissue, and background parenchymal enhancement in magnetic resonance imaging. Breast Cancer. 2018;12:1178223418771971.PubMed
24.
Lee NA, Rusinek H, Weinreb J, Chandra R, Toth H, Singer C, et al. Fatty and fibroglandular tissue volumes in the breasts of women 20-83 years old: comparison of X-ray mammography and computer-assisted MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;168(2):501–6.PubMed
25.
Mann RM, Balleyguier C, Baltzer PA, Bick U, Colin C, Cornford E, et al. Breast MRI: EUSOBI recommendations for women’s information. Eur Radiol. 2015;25(12):3669–78.PubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Kuhl CK. Current status of breast MR imaging. Part 2. Clinical applications. Radiology. 2007;244(3):672–91.PubMed
27.
Saftlas AF, Hoover RN, Brinton LA, Szklo M, Olson DR, Salane M, et al. Mammographic densities and risk of breast cancer. Cancer. 1991;67(11):2833–8.PubMed
28.
Leithner D, Baltzer PA, Magometschnigg HF, Wengert GJ, Karanikas G, Helbich TH, et al. Quantitative assessment of breast parenchymal uptake on 18F-FDG PET/CT: correlation with age, background parenchymal enhancement, and amount of fibroglandular tissue on MRI. J Nuclear Med. 2016;57(10):1518–22.
29.
Wengert GJ, Helbich TH, Woitek R, Kapetas P, Clauser P, Baltzer PA, et al. Inter- and intra-observer agreement of BI-RADS-based subjective visual estimation of amount of fibroglandular breast tissue with magnetic resonance imaging: comparison to automated quantitative assessment. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(11):3917–22.PubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Wengert GJ, Helbich TH, Vogl WD, Baltzer P, Langs G, Weber M, et al. Introduction of an automated user-independent quantitative volumetric magnetic resonance imaging breast density measurement system using the Dixon sequence: comparison with mammographic breast density assessment. Investig Radiol. 2015;50(2):73–80.
31.
Wei J, Chan HP, Helvie MA, Roubidoux MA, Sahiner B, Hadjiiski LM, et al. Correlation between mammographic density and volumetric fibroglandular tissue estimated on breast MR images. Med Phys. 2004;31(4):933–42.PubMed
32.
Boyd N, Martin L, Chavez S, Gunasekara A, Salleh A, Melnichouk O, et al. Breast-tissue composition and other risk factors for breast cancer in young women: a cross-sectional study. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(6):569–80.PubMed
33.
Thompson DJ, Leach MO, Kwan-Lim G, Gayther SA, Ramus SJ, Warsi I, et al. Assessing the usefulness of a novel MRI-based breast density estimation algorithm in a cohort of women at high genetic risk of breast cancer: the UK MARIBS study. Breast Cancer Research. 2009;11(6):R80.PubMed
34.
Klifa C, Carballido-Gamio J, Wilmes L, Laprie A, Shepherd J, Gibbs J, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for secondary assessment of breast density in a high-risk cohort. Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;28(1):8–15.PubMed
35.
Nie K, Chen JH, Chan S, Chau MK, Yu HJ, Bahri S, et al. Development of a quantitative method for analysis of breast density based on three-dimensional breast MRI. Med Phys. 2008;35(12):5253–62.PubMedPubMedCentral
36.
Ko ES, Lee BH, Choi HY, Kim RB, Noh WC. Background enhancement in breast MR: correlation with breast density in mammography and background echotexture in ultrasound. Eur J Radiol. 2011;80(3):719–23.PubMed
37.
Cubuk R, Tasali N, Narin B, Keskiner F, Celik L, Guney S. Correlation between breast density in mammography and background enhancement in MR mammography. La Radiologia Medica. 2010;115(3):434–41.PubMed
38.
Hambly NM, Liberman L, Dershaw DD, Brennan S, Morris EA. Background parenchymal enhancement on baseline screening breast MRI: impact on biopsy rate and short-interval follow-up. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(1):218–24.PubMed
39.
DeMartini WB, Liu F, Peacock S, Eby PR, Gutierrez RL, Lehman CD. Background parenchymal enhancement on breast MRI: impact on diagnostic performance. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198(4):W373–80.PubMed
40.
Sogani J, Morris EA, Kaplan JB, D'Alessio D, Goldman D, Moskowitz CS, et al. Comparison of background parenchymal enhancement at contrast-enhanced spectral mammography and breast MR imaging. Radiology. 2017;282(1):63–73.PubMed
41.
Bennani-Baiti B, Dietzel M, Baltzer PA. MRI background parenchymal enhancement is not associated with breast cancer. PLoS One. 2016;11(7):e0158573.PubMedPubMedCentral
42.
King V, Goldfarb SB, Brooks JD, Sung JS, Nulsen BF, Jozefara JE, et al. Effect of aromatase inhibitors on background parenchymal enhancement and amount of fibroglandular tissue at breast MR imaging. Radiology. 2012;264(3):670–8.PubMed
43.
King V, Kaplan J, Pike MC, Liberman L, David Dershaw D, Lee CH, et al. Impact of tamoxifen on amount of fibroglandular tissue, background parenchymal enhancement, and cysts on breast magnetic resonance imaging. Breast J. 2012;18(6):527–34.PubMed
44.
Schrading S, Schild H, Kuhr M, Kuhl C. Effects of tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors on breast tissue enhancement in dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging: a longitudinal intraindividual cohort study. Radiology. 2014;271(1):45–55.PubMed
45.
Chen JH, Chang YC, Chang D, Wang YT, Nie K, Chang RF, et al. Reduction of breast density following tamoxifen treatment evaluated by 3-D MRI: preliminary study. Magn Reson Imaging. 2011;29(1):91–8.PubMed
46.
van der Velden BHM, Sutton EJ, Carbonaro LA, Pijnappel RM, Morris EA, Gilhuijs KGA. Contralateral parenchymal enhancement on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI reproduces as a biomarker of survival in ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer patients. Eur Radiol. 2018;28(11):4705–16.PubMedPubMedCentral
47.
Shin GW, Zhang Y, Kim MJ, Su MY, Kim EK, Moon HJ, et al. Role of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in evaluating the association between contralateral parenchymal enhancement and survival outcome in ER-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative invasive breast cancer. J Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2018;48(6):1678–89.
48.
Kim JY, Kim SH, Kim YJ, Kang BJ, An YY, Lee AW, et al. Enhancement parameters on dynamic contrast enhanced breast MRI: do they correlate with prognostic factors and subtypes of breast cancers? Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;33(1):72–80.PubMed
49.
Dong JM, Wang HX, Zhong XF, Xu K, Bian J, Feng Y, et al. Changes in background parenchymal enhancement in HER2-positive breast cancer before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: association with pathologic complete response. Medicine. 2018;97(43):e12965.PubMedPubMedCentral
50.
Bermot C, Saint-Martin C, Malhaire C, Sebbag-Sfez D, Mouret-Fourme E, Carton M, et al. Background parenchymal enhancement and fibroglandular tissue on breast MRI in women with high genetic risk: are changes before and after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy associated with breast cancer risk? Eur J Radiol. 2018;109:171–7.PubMed
51.
DeLeo MJ 3rd, Domchek SM, Kontos D, Conant E, Chen J, Weinstein S. Breast MRI fibroglandular volume and parenchymal enhancement in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers before and immediately after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204(3):669–73.PubMed
52.
Chen JH, Nie K, Bahri S, Hsu CC, Hsu FT, Shih HN, et al. Decrease in breast density in the contralateral normal breast of patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy: MR imaging evaluation. Radiology. 2010;255(1):44–52.PubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
MRI background parenchymal enhancement, fibroglandular tissue, and mammographic breast density in patients with invasive lobular breast cancer on adjuvant endocrine hormonal treatment: associations with survival
Publication date
01-12-2020
Published in
Breast Cancer Research / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1465-542X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-020-01329-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Breast Cancer Research 1/2020 Go to the issue

Viewpoint

COVID-19: a potential driver of immune-mediated breast cancer recurrence?

Research article

CRIPTO antagonist ALK4L75A-Fc inhibits breast cancer cell plasticity and adaptation to stress

Research article

Plasma thymidine kinase 1 activity and outcome of ER+ HER2− metastatic breast cancer patients treated with palbociclib and endocrine therapy

Research article

Glucocorticoid receptors are required effectors of TGFβ1-induced p38 MAPK signaling to advanced cancer phenotypes in triple-negative breast cancer

Research article

Fibroblasts direct differentiation of human breast epithelial progenitors

Research article

A machine learning model that classifies breast cancer pathologic complete response on MRI post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits