Triple-negative breast cancer: Correlation between MR imaging and pathologic findings

Radiology

Volumn 250, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 638-647

  Uematsu, Takayoshi ^a   Kasami, Masako ^a   Yuen, Sachiko ^a  

^a SHIZUOKA CANCER CENTER   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR 2; ESTROGEN RECEPTOR; GADOLINIUM PENTETATE; GADOLINIUM PENTETATE MEGLUMINE; PROGESTERONE RECEPTOR;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST FIBROSIS; BREAST NECROSIS; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER INFILTRATION; CANCER SIZE; CARCINOMA IN SITU; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INFORMED CONSENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDULLARY CARCINOMA; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PAPILLARY CARCINOMA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SIGNAL DETECTION; TRIPLE NEGATIVE BREAST CANCER;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MIDDLE AGED; RECEPTOR, ERBB-2; RECEPTORS, ESTROGEN; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 62649148448     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2503081054     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Bauer KR, Brown M, Cress RD, Parise CA, Caggiano V. Descriptive analysis of estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, progesterone receptor (PR)-negative, and HER2-nega- tive invasive breast cancer, the so-called triple-negative phenotype. Cancer 2007; 109:1721-1728.
2. Rakha EA, Reis-Filho JS, Ellis IO. Basal-like breast cancer: a critical review. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:2568-2581.
3. Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB, et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 2000;406:747-752.
4. Reis-Filho JS, Tutt AN. Triple negative tumors: a critical review. Histopathology 2008;52:108-118.
5. Cheang MC, Voduc D, Bajdik C, et al. Basal- like breast cancer defined by five biomarkers has superior prognostic value than triple- negative phenotype. Clin Cancer Res 2008; 14:1368-1376.
6. Haffty BG, Yang Q, Reiss M, et al. Locore- gional relapse and distant metastasis in conservatively managed triple negative early- stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:5652-5657.
7. Dent R, Trudeau M, Pritchard KI, et al. Triple-negative cancer: clinical features and patterns of recurrence. Clin Cancer Res 2007;13:4429- 4434.
8. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). 4th ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003.
9. Egan RL. Multicentric breast carcinomas: clinical-radiographic-pathologic whole organ studies and 10-year survival. Cancer 1982;49:1123-1130.
10. Houssami N, Ciatto S, Macaskill P, et al. Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer. J Cin Oncol 2008;26:3248-3258.
11. Hasebe T, Tsuda H, Hirohashi S, et al. Fi- brotic focus in infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the breast: a significant histopathological prognostic parameter for predicting the long-term survival of the patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1998;49:195-208.
12. Wang Y, Ikeda DM, Narasimhan B, et al. Estrogen receptor-negative invasive breast cancer: imaging features of tumors with and without human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 overexpression. Radiology 2008;246:367-375.
13. Putti TC, El-Rehim DM, Rakha EA, et al. Estrogen receptor-negative breast carcinomas: a review of morphology and immuno- phenotypical analysis. Mod Pathol 2005;18: 26-35.
14. Fulford LG, Easton DF, Reis-Filho JS, et al. Specific morphological features predictive
15. for the basal phenotype in grade 3 invasive ductal carcinoma of breast. Histopathology 2006;49:22-34.
16. Livasy CA, Karaca G, Nanda R, et al. Pheno- typic evaluation of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Mod Pathol 2006; 19:264-271.
17. Schrading S, Kuhl CK. Mammographic, US, and MR imaging phenotypes of familial breast cancer. Radiology 2008;246:58-70.
18. Teifke A, Behr O, Schmidt M, et al. Dynamic MR imaging of breast lesions: correlation with microvessel distribution pattern and histologic characteristics of prognosis. Radiology 2006;239:351-360.
19. Fisher ER, Anderson S, Redmond C, Fisher B. Pathologic findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project B-06: 10-year pathologic and clinical prognostic discriminants. Cancer 1993;71:2507-2514.
20. Jimenez RE, Wallis T, Visscher DW. Centrally necrotizing carcinoma of the breast: a distinct histologic subtype with aggressive clinical behavior. Am J Surg Pathol 2001;25:331-337.
21. Leek RD, Landers RJ, Harris AL, Lewis CE. Necrosis correlates with high vascular density and focal macrophage infiltration in invasive carcinoma of the breast. Br J Cancer 1999;79:991-995.
22. Metz S, Daldrup-Link HE, Richter T, et al. Detection and quantification of breast tumor necrosis with MR imaging: value of the necrosis-avid contrast agent Gadophrin-3. Acad Radiol 2003;10:484-490.
23. Kawashima M, Tamaki Y, Nonaka T, et al. MR imaging of mucinous carcinoma of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179: 179-183.
24. Hochman MG, Orel SG, Powell CM, et al. Fibroadenomas: MR imaging appearances with radiologic-histopathologic correlation. Radiology 1997;204:123-129.
25. Velasco M, Santamaria G, Ganau S, et al. MRI of metaplastic carcinoma of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:1274-1278.
26. Warren RM, Pointon L, Thompson D, et al. Reading protocol for dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images of the breast: sensitivity and specificity analysis. Radiology 2005;236: 779-788.
27. Upponi SS, Warren RM. The diagnostic impact of contrast-enhanced MRI in management ofbreast disease. Breast 2006;15:736-743.
28. Yuen S, Uematsu T, Kasami M, et al. Breast carcinomas with strong high-signal intensity on T2-weighted MR images: pathological characteristics and differential diagnosis. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007;25:502-510.
29. Rhodes A, Jasani B, Barnes DM, Bobrow LG, Miller KD. Reliability of immunohisto- chemical demonstration of oestrogen receptors in routine practice: interlaboratory variance in the sensitivity ofdetection and evaluation of scoring systems. J Clin Pathol 2000;53:125-130.
30. Rudiger T, Hofler H, Kreipe HH, et al. Quality assurance in immunohistochemistry: results of an interlaboratory trial involving 172 pathologists. Am J Surg Pathol 2002;26:873- 882.
31. Mann GB, Fahey VD, Feleppa F, Buchanan MR. Reliance on hormone receptor assays of surgical specimens may compromise out come in patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:5148-5154.