Imaging features of sporadic breast cancer in women under 40 years old: 97 cases

European Radiology

Volumn 23, Issue 12, 2013, Pages 3237-3245

  Bullier, Bénédicte ^a   MacGrogan, Gaétan ^a   Bonnefoi, Hervé ^a,b,c   Hurtevent Labrot, Gabrielle ^a   Lhomme, Edouard ^a   Brouste, Véronique ^a   Boisserie Lacroix, Martine ^a  

^a INSTITUT BERGONIÉ   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE BORDEAUX   (France)

^c INSERM   (France)

Author keywords

Breast neoplasms; Magnetic resonance imaging; Mammography; Ultrasound; Young women

Indexed keywords

EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR 2;

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; ARTICLE; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST CANCER; CLINICAL FEATURE; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; ECHOGRAPH; ECHOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MAMMOGRAPHY SYSTEM; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN EXPRESSION; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; SPORADIC BREAST CANCER; TRIPLE NEGATIVE BREAST CANCER;

ADULT; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CALCINOSIS; CARCINOMA IN SITU; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL; CARCINOMA, LOBULAR; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MAMMOGRAPHY; RECEPTOR, ERBB-2; RECEPTORS, ESTROGEN; RECEPTORS, PROGESTERONE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TRIPLE NEGATIVE BREAST NEOPLASMS; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84890556750     PISSN: 09387994     EISSN: 14321084     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-013-2966-z     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Kheirelseid EH, Boggs JM, Curran C et al (2011) Younger age as a prognostic indicator in breast cancer: a cohort study. BMC Cancer 11:383-389
2. Ries A, Eisner M, Kosary C et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2002, Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/ 1975-2002/, based on November 2004 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site 2005 (accessed 5 March 2013)
3. Cardoso F, Loibl S, Pagani O et al (2012) The European society of breast cancer specialists recommendations for the management of young women with breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 48:3355-3377
4. Lehman CD, Lee CI, Loving VA, Portillo MS, Peacock S, DeMartini WB (2012) Accuracy and value of breast ultrasound for primary imaging evaluation of symptomatic women 30-39 years of age. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:1169-1177
5. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force et al (2002) Screening for breast cancer: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med 137:344-346
6. Perry NM, Patani N, Milner SE et al (2011) The impact of digital mammography on screening a young cohort of women for breast cancer in an urban specialist breast unit. Eur Radiol 21:676-682
7. Yankaskas BC, Haneuse S, Kapp JM, Kerlikowske K, Geller B, Buist DS (2010) Performance of first mammography examination in women younger than 40 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 102:692-701
8. An YY, Kim SH, Kang BJ (2012) Characteristic features and usefulness of MRI in breast cancer in patients under 40 years old: correlations with conventional imaging and prognostic factors. Breast Cancer. doi: 10.1007/s12282-012-0383-9, Epub ahead of print
9. Foxcroft LM, Evans EB, Porter AJ (2004) The diagnosis of breast cancer in women younger than 40. Breast 13:297-306
10. Saarenmaa I, Salminen T, Geiger U et al (2001) The effect of age and density of the breast on the sensitivity of breast cancer diagnostic by mammography and ultasonography. Breast Cancer Res Treat 67:117-123
11. Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB et al (2000) Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 406:747-752
12. MacGrogan G, Soubeyran I, de Mascarel I et al (1996) Immunohistochemical detection of progesterone receptors in breast invasive ductal carcinomas: a correlative study of 942 cases. Appl Immunohistochem 4:219-227
13. Cheang MC, Chia SK, Voduc D et al (2009) Ki67 index, HER2 status, and prognosis of patients with luminal B breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 101:736-750
14. American College of Radiology (ACR). ACR Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas. 2003.
15. Berg WA, Cosgrove DO, Dore CJ et al (2012) Shear-wave elastography improves the specificity of breast US: the BE1 multinational study of 939 masses. Radiology 262:435-449
16. Smith RA, Saslow D, Sawyer KA et al (2003) American cancer society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 53:141-169
17. Kwong A, Cheung P, Chan S, Lau S (2008) Breast cancer in Chinese women younger than age 40: are they different from their older counterparts? World J Surg 32:2554-2561
18. Zadelis S, Houssami N (2003) Mammographic features of breast cancer in young symptomatic women. Australas Radiol 47:404-408
19. Collins LC, Marotti JD, Gelber S et al (2012) Pathologic features and molecular phenotype by patient age in a large cohort of young women with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 131:1061-1066
20. Caldarella A, Crocetti E, Bianchi S et al (2011) Female breast cancer status according to ER, PR and HER2 expression: a population based analysis. Pathol Oncol Res 17:753-758
21. Whitman GJ, Albarracin CT, Gonzalez-Angulo AM (2011) Triple-negative breast cancer: what the radiologist needs to know. Semin Roentgenol 46:26-39
22. Hartman AR, Kaldate RR, Sailer LM et al (2012) Prevalence of BRCA mutations in an unselected population of triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer 118:2787-2795
23. Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L (2008) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition - summary document. Ann Oncol 19:614-622
24. Yaffe MJ, Barnes GT, Orton CG (2006) Point/counterpoint. Film mammography for breast cancer screening in younger women is no longer appropriate because of the demonstrated superiority of digital mammography for this age group. Med Phys 33:3979-3982
25. Di Nubila B, Cassano E, Urban LA et al (2006) Radiological features and pathological-biological correlations in 348 women with breast cancer under 35 years old. Breast 15:744-753
26. Taneja S, Evans AJ, Rakha EA, Green AR, Ball G, Ellis IO (2008) The mammographic correlations of a new immunohistochemical classification of invasive breast cancer. Clin Radiol 63:1228-1235
27. Shin HJ, Kim HH, Huh MO et al (2011) Correlation between mammographic and sonographic findings and prognostic factors in patients with node-negative invasive breast cancer. Br J Radiol 84:19-30
28. Mesurolle B, Kadoch L, El-Khoury M, Lisbona A, Dendukuri N, Foulkes WD (2007) Sonographic features of breast carcinoma presenting as masses in BRCA gene mutation carriers. J Ultrasound Med 26:817-824
29. Schrading S, Kuhl CK (2008) Mammographic, US, and MR imaging phenotypes of familial breast cancer. Radiology 246:58-70
30. Au-Yong IT, Evans AJ, Taneja S et al (2009) Sonographic correlations with the new molecular classification of invasive breast cancer. Eur Radiol 19:2342-2348
31. Boisserie-Lacroix M, MacGrogan G, Debled M et al (2012) Radiological features of triple-negative breast cancers (73 cases). Diagn Interv Imaging 93:183-190
32. Kojima Y, Tsunoda H (2011) Mammography and ultrasound features of triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer 18:146-151
33. Gilbert FJ, Warren RM, Kwan-Lim G et al (2009) Cancers in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers and in women at high risk for breast cancer: MR imaging and mammographic features. Radiology 252:358-368
34. Uematsu T, Kasami M, Yuen S (2009) Triple-negative breast cancer: correlation between MR imaging and pathologic findings. Radiology 250:638-647