Multidetector row helical computed tomography for invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast: Correlation between radiological findings and the corresponding biological characteristics of patients

Cancer Science

Volumn 103, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 67-72

  Tamaki, Kentaro ^a,b,c   Ishida, Takanori ^a   Miyashita, Minoru ^a   Amari, Masakazu ^a   Mori, Naoko ^a   Ohuchi, Noriaki ^a   Tamaki, Nobumitsu ^c   Sasano, Hironobu ^b  

^a TOHOKU UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

^b TOHOKU UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Japan)

^c Nahanishi Clinic   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR 2; ESTROGEN RECEPTOR;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER RECURRENCE; CELL COUNT; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; INVASIVE CARCINOMA; LYMPH VESSEL; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MITOSIS; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; UNIVERSITY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; FEMALE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PROGNOSIS; RECEPTOR, ERBB-2; RECEPTORS, ESTROGEN; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SURVIVAL RATE;

EID: 84855476861     PISSN: 13479032     EISSN: 13497006     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1349-7006.2011.02116.x     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Carter CL, Allen C, Henson DE et al. Relation of tumour size, lymph node status, and survival in 24, 740 breast cancer cases. Cancer 1989; 63: 181-7.
2. Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histopathological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 1991; 19: 403-10.
3. Lee AHS, Pinder SE, Macmillan RD et al. Prognostic value of lymph vascular invasion in women with lymph node negative invasive breast carcinoma. Eur J Cancer 2006; 42: 357-62.
4. Bauer KR, Brown M, Cress RD et al. Descriptive analysis of estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, progesterone receptor (PR)-negative, and HER2-negative invasive breast cancer, the so-called triple-negative phenotype: a population-based study from the California cancer Registry. Cancer 2007; 109: 1721-8.
5. Tamaki K, Sasano H, Ishida T et al. 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 2010; 101: 2074-9.
6. Tamaki K, Sasano H, Ishida T et al. The correlation between ultrasonographic findings and pathologic features in breast disorders. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2010; 40: 905-12.
7. Luck AA, Evans AJ, James JJ et al. Breast carcinoma with basal phenotype: mammographic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008; 191: 346-51.
8. Evans AJ, Pinder SE, James JJ et al. Is mammographic spiculation an independent, good prognostic factor in screening detected invasive breast cancer? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 187: 1377-80.
9. Lee SH, Cho N, Kim SJ et al. Correlation between high resolution dynamic MR features and prognostic factors in breast cancer. Korean J Radiol 2008; 9: 10-8.
10. Kim SH, Seo BK, Lee J et al. Correlation of ultrasound findings with histology, tumor grade, and biological markers in breast cancer. Acta Oncol 2008; 47: 1531-8.
11. Amano G, Ohuchi N, Ishibashi T et al. Correlation of three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging with precise histopathological map concerning carcinoma extension in the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2000; 60: 43-55.
12. Takase K, Furuta A, Harada N et al. Assessing the extent of breast cancer using multidetector row helical computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2006; 30: 479-85.
13. Harada-Shoji N, Yamada T, Ishida T et al. Usefulness of lesion image mapping with multidetector-row helical computed tomography using a dedicated skin marker in breast-conserving surgery. Eur Radiol 2009; 19: 868-74.
14. Tavassoli FA, Devilee P. World Health Organization Classification of Tumors. Tumor of the Breast and Females Gental Organs. Lyon: IARC Press, 2003.
15. Rosen PP. Rosen's Breast Pathology, 3rd edn. Philadelphia, PA, USA: Lippncott Williams & Wilkins, 2009.
16. Allred DC, Harvey JM, Berardo M, Clark GM. Prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer by immunohistochemical analysis. Mod Pathol 1998; 11: 155-68.
17. Wolff AC, Hammond MH, Schwartz JN et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 118-45.
18. Goldhirsch A, Ingle JN, Gelber RD et al. Thresholds for therapies: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2009. Ann Oncol 2009; 20: 1319-29.
19. Jalava P, Kuopio T, Juntti-Patinen L et al. Ki67 immunohistochemistry: a valuable marker in prognostication but with a risk of misclassification: proliferation subgroups formed based on Ki67 immunoreactivity and standardized mitotic index. Histopathology 2006; 48: 674-82.
20. Uematsu T, Kasami M, Yuen S. Triple-negative breast cancer: correlation between MR imaging and pathologic findings. Radiology 2009; 250: 638-47.
21. Inoue M, Sano T, Watai R et al. Dynamic multidetector CT of breast tumors: diagnostic features and comparison with conventional techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 181: 679-86.
22. Jeh SK, Kim SH, Kim HS et al. Correlation of the apparent diffusion coefficient value and dynamic magnetic resonance imaging findings with prognostic factors in invasive ductal carcinoma. J Magn Reson Imaging 2011; 33: 102-9.