Imaging features of HER2 overexpression in breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention

Volumn 23, Issue 8, 2014, Pages 1464-1483

  Elias, Sjoerd G ^a   Adams, Arthur ^a   Wisner, Dorota J ^c   Esserman, Laura J ^c   Van't Veer, Laura J ^c   Mali, Willem P TH M ^a   Gilhuijs, Kenneth G A ^a,b   Hylton, Nola M ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^b ANTONI VAN LEEUWENHOEK HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR 2; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; ERBB2 PROTEIN, HUMAN;

ANALYSIS; BREAST; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST CANCER; BREAST DENSITY; BREAST DISEASE; BREAST SKIN THICKENING; BREAST TUMOR; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CLINICAL FEATURE; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; EMBASE; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDLINE; META ANALYSIS; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PHENOTYPE; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN EXPRESSION; REVIEW; STANDARDIZED UPTAKE VALUE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; WHOLE BODY PET; BIOSYNTHESIS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; FEMALE; GENETICS; PATHOLOGY;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; FEMALE; HUMANS; PHENOTYPE; RECEPTOR, ERBB-2;

EID: 84905504161     PISSN: 10559965     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-1170     Document Type: Review

References (116)

1. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. GLOBOCAN 2008 v2.0, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 10. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2010 [accessed on 2013 Oct. 5]. Available from: http://globocan. iarc.fr.
2. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003.
3. Devilee P, Tavassoli FA. World Health Organization: tumours of the breast and female genital organs. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2003.
4. Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB, Van De RM, Jeffrey SS, Rees CA, et al. Molecular portraitsof humanbreast tumours. Nature 2000;406:747-52.
5. Curtis C, Shah SP, Chin SF, Turashvili G, Rueda OM, Dunning MJ, et al. The genomic and transcriptomic architecture of 2, 000 breast tumours reveals novel subgroups. Nature 2012;486:346-52.
6. Ferretti G, Felici A, Papaldo P, Fabi A, Cognetti F. HER2/neu role in breast cancer: from a prognostic foe to a predictive friend. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2007;19:56-62.
7. Zhou BP, Hung MC. Dysregulation of cellular signaling by HER2/neu in breast cancer. Semin Oncol 2003;30:38-48.
8. Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 2005;5:13.
9. Van Belle G. Statistical rules of thumb. New York: Wiley-Interscience; 2002.
10. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2013. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL. Available from: http://www.R-project.org/.
11. Lumley T. Rmeta: meta-analysis. R package version 2.16; 2013. Available from: http://CRAN. R-project.org/package1/4rmeta.
12. Schwarzer G. Meta: meta-analysis with R. R package version 2.1-1; 2013. Available from: http://CRAN. R-project.org/package1/4meta.
13. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Br Med J 2009;339:b2535.
14. Chen M, Li JL, Song DF, Zhang Y, Li YZ, Wei LX. Correlation between grey scale ultrasonographic feature and estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 expression in infiltrating ductal cancer of breast. Chin J Ultrasonogr 2008;17:333-5.
15. Li Y, Yang L, Ding Y. Correlative study between ultrasonographic features and the expression of ER, PR and c-erbB2 in breast invasive ductal carcinoma. J Ultrasound in Clin Med 2008;10:452-4.
16. Baek HM, Chen JH, Nalcioglu O, Su MY. Choline as a biomarker for cell proliferation: do the results from proton MR spectroscopy show difference between HER2/neu positive and negative breast cancers? Int J Cancer 2008;123:1219-21.
17. Gil-Rendo A, Martinez-Regueira F, Zornoza G, Garcia-Velloso MJ, Beorlegui C, Rodriguez-Spiteri N. Association between [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose uptake and prognostic parameters in breast cancer. Br J Surg 2009;96:166-70.
18. Heudel P, Cimarelli S, Montella A, Bouteille C, Mognetti T. Value of PET-FDG in primary breast cancer based on histopathological and immunohistochemical prognostic factors. Int J Clin Oncol 2010;15:588-93.
19. Berriolo-Riedinger A, Touzery C, Riedinger JM, Toubeau M, Coudert B, Arnould L, et al. [18F]FDG-PET predicts complete pathological response of breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2007;34:1915-24.
20. Buck A, Schirrmeister H, Kuhn T, Shen C, Kalker T, Kotzerke J, et al. FDG uptake in breast cancer: correlation with biological and clinical prognostic parameters. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002;29:1317-23.
21. Ildefonso C, Vazquez J, Guinea O, Perez A, Fernandez A, Corte MD, et al. The mammographic appearance of breast carcinomas of invasive ductal type: relationship with clinicopathological parameters, biological features and prognosis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2008;136:224-31.
22. Fischer U, Kopka L, Brinck U, Korabiowska M, Schauer A, Grabbe E. Prognostic value of contrast-enhanced MR mammography in patients with breast cancer. Eur Radiol 1997;7:1002-5.
23. Shimoda W, Hayashi M, Murakami K, Oyama T, Sunagawa M. The relationship between FDG uptake in PET scans and biological behavior in breast cancer. Breast Cancer 2007;14:260-8.
24. Specht JM, Kurland BF, Montgomery SK, Dunnwald LK, Doot RK, Gralow JR, et al. Tumor metabolism and blood flow as assessed by positron emission tomography varies by tumor subtype in locally advanced breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2010;16:2803-10.
25. Karamouzis MV, Likaki-Karatza E, Ravazoula P, Badra FA, Koukouras D, Tzorakoleftherakis E, et al. Non-palpable breast carcinomas: correlation of mammographically detected malignant-appearing microcalcifications and molecular prognostic factors. Int J Cancer 2002;102:86-90.
26. Kumar R, Chauhan A, Zhuang H, Chandra P, Schnall M, Alavi A. Clinicopathologic factors associated with false negative FDG-PET in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2006;98:267-74.
27. Ueda S, Kondoh N, Tsuda H, Yamamoto S, Asakawa H, Fukatsu K, et al. Expression of centromere protein F (CENP-F) associated with higher FDG uptake on PET/CT, detected by cDNA microarray, predicts high-risk patients with primary breast cancer. BMC Cancer 2008;8:384.
28. Agrawal AK, Jelen M, Rudnicki J, Grzebieniak Z, Zukrowski P, Nienartowicz E. Molecular markers (c-erbB-2, p53) in breast cancer. Folia Histochem Cytobiol 2008;46:449-55.
29. Aiello EJ, Buist D S M, White E, Porter PL. Association between mammographic breast density and breast cancer tumor characteristics. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14:662-8.
30. Arora N, King TA, Jacks LM, Stempel MM, Patil S, Morris E, et al. Impact of breast density on the presenting features of malignancy. Ann Surg Oncol 2010;17(Suppl 3):211-8.
31. Badra FA, Karamouzis MV, Ravazoula P, Likaki-Karatza E, Tzorakoleftherakis E, Koukouras D, et al. Non-palpable breast carcinomas: correlation of mammographically detected malignant-appearing microcalcifications and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) family expression. Cancer Lett 2006;244:34-41.
32. Cui CX, Lin Q, Yang Q, Zhang CY, Wang SH, Yu HL, et al. Comparative study on mammography between triple negative and triple positive breast cancer. Chin J Radiol 2012;46:420-4.
33. Di Nubila B, Cassano E, Urban LA, Fedele P, Abbate F, Maisonneuve P, et al. Radiological features and pathological-biological correlations in 348 women with breast cancer under 35 years old. Breast 2006;15:744-53.
34. Enache DE, Georgescu CV, Patrana N. Negative estrogen-receptor invasive breast carcinoma: mammographic aspects, correlations with HER2/neu oncoprotein status. Rom J Morphol Embryol 2012;53:755-62.
35. Evans AJ, Pinder SE, Ellis IO, Sibbering DM, Elston CW, Poller DN, et al. Correlations between the mammographic features of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and C-erbB-2 oncogene expression. Nottingham Breast Team. Clin Radiol 1994;49:559-62.
36. Fasching PA, Heusinger K, Loehberg CR, Wenkel E, Lux MP, Schrauder M, et al. Influence of mammographic density on the diagnostic accuracy of tumor size assessment and association with breast cancer tumor characteristics. Eur J Radiol 2006;60:398-404.
37. Gajdos C, Tartter PI, Bleiweiss IJ, Hermann G, De Csepel J, Estabrook A, et al. Mammographic appearance of nonpalpable breast cancer reflects pathologic characteristics. Ann Surg 2002;235:246-51.
38. Gu YJ, Xiao Q, Yang WT, Zheng XJ, Gu RF. The X-ray features of breast ductal carcinoma in situ and its small invasive foci and correlation between mammographic features and prognostic biologic factors. Chin J Radiol 2007;41:623-8.
39. Jiang L, Ma T, Moran MS, Kong X, Li X, Haffty BG, et al. Mammographic features are associated with clinicopathological characteristics in invasive breast cancer. Anticancer Res 2011;31:2327-34.
40. Kim JH, Ko ES, Kim DY, Han H, Sohn JH, Choe DH. Noncalcified ductal carcinoma in situ: imaging and histologic findings in 36 tumors. J Ultrasound Med 2009;28:903-10.
41. Ko ES, Lee BH, Kim HA, Noh WC, Kim MS, Lee SA. Triple-negative breast cancer: correlation between imaging and pathological findings. Eur Radiol 2010;20:1111-7.
42. Kuo YJ, Ho D M T, Tsai YF, Hsu CY. Invasive ductal carcinoma arising in phyllodes tumor with isolated tumor cells in sentinel lymph node. J Chin Med Assoc 2010;73:602-4.
43. Li R, Chen Y. Mammographic features and clinical characteristics of different molecular subtypes of infiltrative ductal carcinoma. Chin J Med Imaging Technol 2011;27:565-8.
44. Ma H, Luo J, Press MF, Wang Y, Bernstein L, Ursin G. Is there a difference in the association between percent mammographic density and subtypes of breast cancer? Luminal A and triplenegative breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18:479-85.
45. Mansson E, Bergkvist L, Christenson G, Persson C, Warnberg F. Mammographic casting-type calcifications is not a prognostic factor in unifocal small invasive breast cancer: a population-based retrospective cohort study. J Surg Oncol 2009;100:670-4.
46. Mun HS, Shin HJ, Kim HH, Cha JH, Kim H. Screening-detected calcified and non-calcified ductal carcinoma in situ: differences in the imaging and histopathological features. Clin Radiol 2013;68:e27-35.
47. Palka I, Ormandi K, Gaal S, Boda K, Kahan Z. Casting-type calcifications on the mammogram suggest a higher probability of early relapse and death among high-risk breast cancer patients. Acta Oncol 2007;46:1178-83.
48. Palka I, Kelemen G, Ormandi K, Lazar G, Nyari T, Thurzo L, et al. Tumor characteristics in screen-detected and symptomatic breast cancers. Pathol Oncol Res 2008;14:161-7.
49. Phipps AI, Buist DS, Malone KE, Barlow WE, Porter PL, Kerlikowske K, et al. Breast density, body mass index, and risk of tumor marker-defined subtypes of breast cancer. Ann Epidemiol 2012;22:340-8.
50. Pollan M, Ascunce N, Ederra M, Murillo A, Erdozain N, Es-Martinez JE, et al. Mammographic density and risk of breast cancer according to tumor characteristics and mode of detection: a Spanish populationbased case-control study. Breast Cancer Res 2013;15:R9.
51. Seo BK, Pisano ED, Kuzimak CM, Koomen M, Pavic D, Lee Y, et al. Correlation of HER-2/neu overexpression with mammography and age distribution in primary breast carcinomas. Acad Radiol 2006;13:1211-8.
52. Shin HJ, Kim HH, Huh MO, Kim MJ, Yi A, Kim H, et al. Correlation between mammographic and sonographic findings and prognostic factors in patients with node-negative invasive breast cancer. Br J Radiol 2011;84:19-30.
53. Sun QH, Fu RZ, Guo F, Ren LJ. Correlation between feature-calcification of mamnographic X-ray and expression of c-erbB-2 protein in breast cancer. Chin J Cancer Prev Treat 2008;15:1481-2.
54. Taneja S, Evans AJ, Rakha EA, Green AR, Ball G, Ellis IO. The mammographic correlations of a new immunohistochemical classification of invasive breast cancer. Clin Radiol 2008;63:1228-35.
55. Wang X, Chao L, Chen L, Tian B, Ma G, Zang Y, et al. Correlation of mammographic calcifications with Her-2/neu overexpression in primary breast carcinomas. J Digit Imaging 2008;21:170-6.
56. Wang Y, Ikeda DM, Narasimhan B, Longacre TA, Bleicher RJ, Pal S, 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;246:367-75.
57. Wang YX, Xu XJ. Correlation study on mammographic features, pathology and molecular biology of breast cancer. Chin J Med Imaging Technol 2008;24:60-3.
58. Wen SY, Han YW, Ma XM, Zhang J, Cui WJ, Cao XC, et al. [Mammographic and pathological features of triple-negative breast cancer]. Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi 2012;34:291-5.
59. Yaghjyan L, Colditz GA, Collins LC, Schnitt SJ, Rosner B, Vachon C, et al. Mammographic breast density and subsequent risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women according to tumor characteristics. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011;103:1179-89.
60. Yang WT, Dryden M, Broglio K, Gilcrease M, Dawood S, Dempsey PJ, et al. Mammographic features of triple receptor-negative primary breast cancers in young premenopausal women. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2008;111:405-10.
61. Au-Yong IT, Evans AJ, Taneja S, Rakha EA, Green AR, Paish C, et al. Sonographic correlations with the new molecular classification of invasive breast cancer. Eur Radiol 2009;19:2342-8.
62. Chen ST, Kuo SJ, Wu HK, Chen LS, Chen DR. Power Doppler breast ultrasound: association of vascularization and ER/c-erbB-2 coexpression in invasive breast carcinoma. Breast Cancer 2011;20:152-8.
63. Kim SH, Seo BK, Lee J, Kim SJ, Cho KR, Lee KY, et al. Correlation of ultrasound findings with histology, tumor grade, and biological markers in breast cancer. Acta Oncol 2008;47:1531-8.
64. Pang CX, Li ZX, Ding XM, Zhang L, Wei KL, Huang KQ. Infiltrating ductal cancer of breast: correlation between ultrasonographic features and ER, C-erbB-2 expression level. Chin J Med Imaging Technol 2009;25:449-52.
65. Wan CF, Du J, Fang H, Li FH, Zhu JS, Liu Q. Enhancement patterns and parameters of breast cancers at contrast-enhanced US: correlation with prognostic factors. Radiology 2012;262:450-9.
66. Agrawal G, Chen JH, Baek HM, Hsiang D, Mehta RS, Nalcioglu O, et al. MRI features of breast cancer: a correlation study with HER-2 receptor. Ann Oncol 2007;18:1903-4.
67. Baltzer PA, Vag T, Dietzel M, Beger S, Freiberg C, Gajda M, et al. Computer-aided interpretation of dynamic magnetic resonance imaging reflects histopathology of invasive breast cancer. Eur Radiol 2010;20:1563-71.
68. Chang YW, Kwon KH, Choi DL, Lee DW, Lee MH, Lee HK, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of breast cancer and correlation with prognostic factors. Acta Radiol 2009;50:990-8.
69. Chen JH, Bahri S, Mehta RS, Kuzucan A, Yu HJ, Carpenter PM, et al. Breast cancer: evaluation of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy with 3.0-T MR imaging. Radiology 2011;261:735-43.
70. Choi BB, Kim SH, Kang BJ, Lee JH, Song BJ, Jeong SH, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging and FDG PET/CT: predicting the prognoses with apparent diffusion coefficient values and maximum standardized uptake values in patients with invasive ductal carcinoma. World J Surg Oncol 2012;10:126.
71. Costantini M, Belli P, Distefano D, Bufi E, Matteo MD, Rinaldi P, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging features in triple-negative breast cancer: comparison with luminal and HER2-overexpressing tumors. Clin Breast Cancer 2012;12:331-9.
72. Fernandez-Guinea O, Andicoechea A, Gonzalez LO, Gonzalez-Reyes S, Merino AM, Hernandez LC, et al. Relationship between morphological features and kinetic patterns of enhancement of the dynamic breast magnetic resonance imaging and clinico-pathological and biological factors in invasive breast cancer. BMC Cancer 2010;10:8.
73. Girardi V, Carbognin G, Camera L, Tonegutti M, Bonetti F, Manfrin E, et al. Fischer's score criteria correlating with histopathological prognostic factors in invasive breast cancer. Radiol Med 2010;115:421-33.
74. Gomez-Raposo C, Andreu M, Suarez-Garcia I, Esteban MI, Carballo M, Sereno-Moyano MF, et al. Relevance of breast cancer subtypes for magnetic resonance imaging response monitoring during neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Clin Transl Oncol 2012;14:486-8.
75. Jeh SK, Kim SH, Kim HS, Kang BJ, Jeong SH, Yim HW, 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.
76. Kim JA, Son EJ, Youk JH, Kim EK, Kim MJ, Kwak JY, et al. MRI findings of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: kinetic characteristics compared according to lesion type and histopathologic factors. Am J Roentgenol 2011;196:1450-6.
77. Kim SH, Cha ES, Kim HS, Kang BJ, Choi JJ, Jung JH, et al. Diffusionweighted imaging of breast cancer: correlation of the apparent diffusion coefficient value with prognostic factors. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009;30:615-20.
78. Koo HR, Cho N, Song IC, Kim H, Chang JM, Yi A, et al. Correlation of perfusion parameters on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI with prognostic factors and subtypes of breast cancers. J Magn Reson Imaging 2012;36:145-51.
79. Lee SH, Cho N, Kim SJ, Cha JH, Cho KS, Ko ES, et al. Correlation between high resolution dynamic MR features and prognostic factors in breast cancer. Korean J Radiol 2008;9:10-8.
80. Liu H, Peng W. MRI morphological classification of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) correlating with different biological behavior. Eur J Radiol 2011;81:214-7.
81. Loo CE, Straver ME, Rodenhuis S, Muller SH, Wesseling J, Vrancken Peeters MJ, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging response monitoring of breast cancer during neoadjuvant chemotherapy: relevance of breast cancer subtype. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:660-6.
82. Lu H, Xu YL, Zhang SP, Lang RG, Zee CS, Liu PF, et al. Breast magnetic resonance imaging in patients with occult breast carcinoma: evaluation on feasibility and correlation with histopathological findings. Chin Med J 2011;124:1790-5.
83. Makkat S, Luypaert R, Stadnik T, Bourgain C, Sourbron S, Dujardin M, et al. Deconvolution-based dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging of breast tumors: correlation of tumor blood flow with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status and clinicopathologic findings-preliminary results. Radiology 2008;249:471-82.
84. Marcos De Paz LM, Tejerina BA, Arranz Merino ML, Calvo De Juan V. Breast MR imaging changes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: correlation with molecular subtypes. Radiologia 2011;54:442-8.
85. Martincich L, Deantoni V, Bertotto I, Redana S, Kubatzki F, Sarotto I, et al. Correlations between diffusion-weighted imaging and breast cancer biomarkers. Eur Radiol 2012;22:1519-28.
86. Montemurro F, Martincich L, Sarotto I, Bertotto I, Ponzone R, Cellini L, et al. Relationship between DCE-MRI morphological and functional features and histopathological characteristics of breast cancer. Eur Radiol 2007;17:1490-7.
87. Nakajo M, Kajiya Y, Kaneko T, Kaneko Y, Takasaki T, Tani A, et al. FDG PET/CT and diffusion-weighted imaging for breast cancer: prognostic valueofmaximumstandardized uptakevaluesand apparent diffusion coefficient values of the primary lesion. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37:2011-20.
88. Sah RG, Sharma U, Parshad R, Seenu V, Mathur SR, Jagannathan NR. Association of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status with total choline concentration and tumor volume in breast cancer patients: an MRI and in vivo proton MRS study. Magn Reson Med 2012;68:1039-47.
89. Shin HJ, Baek HM, Cha JH, Kim HH. Evaluation of breast cancer using proton MR spectroscopy: total choline peak integral and signalto-noise ratio as prognostic indicators. Am J Roentgenol 2012;198:W488-97.
90. Szabo BK, Aspelin P, Kristoffersen WM, Tot T, Bone B. Invasive breast cancer: correlation of dynamic MR features with prognostic factors. Eur Radiol 2003;13:2425-35.
91. Tozaki M, Hoshi K. 1H MR spectroscopy of invasive ductal carcinoma: correlations with FDG PET and histologic prognostic factors. Am J Roentgenol 2010;194:1384-90.
92. Youk JH, Son EJ, Chung J, Kim JA, Kim EK. Triple-negative invasive breast cancer on dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR imaging: comparison with other breast cancer subtypes. Eur Radiol 2012;22:1724-34.
93. Garcia Vicente AM, Castrejon AS, Relea CF, Munoz AP, Leon Martin AA, Lopez-Muniz IC, et al. 18F-FDG retention index and biologic prognostic parameters in breast cancer. Clin Nucl Med 2012;37:460-6.
94. Groheux D, Giacchetti S, Moretti JL, Porcher R, Espie M, Lehmann-Che J, et al. Correlation of high 18F-FDG uptake to clinical, pathological and biological prognostic factors in breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011;38:426-35.
95. Humbert O, Berriolo-Riedinger A, Riedinger JM, Coudert B, Arnould L, Cochet A, et al. Changes in 18F-FDG tumor metabolism after a first course of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: influence of tumor subtypes. Ann Oncol 2012;23:2572-7.
96. Ikenaga N, Otomo N, Toyofuku A, Ueda Y, Toyoda K, Hayashi T, et al. Standardized uptake values for breast carcinomas assessed by fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography correlate with prognostic factors. Am Surg 2007;73:1151-7.
97. Jin S, Kim SB, Ahn JH, Jung KH, Ahn SH, Son BH, et al. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose uptake predicts pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: a retrospective cohort study. J Surg Oncol 2013;107:180-7.
98. Keam B, Im SA, Koh Y, Han SW, Oh DY, Cho N, et al. Early metabolic response using FDG PET/CT and molecular phenotypes of breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. BMC Cancer 2011;11:254.
99. Kim BS, Sung SH. Usefulness of 18F-FDG uptake with clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical prognostic factors in breast cancer. Ann Nucl Med 2012;26:175-83.
100. Koolen BB, Vrancken Peeters M J TF, Wesseling J, Lips EH, Vogel WV, Aukema TS, et al. Association of primary tumour FDG uptake with clinical, histopathological and molecular characteristics in breast cancer patients scheduled for neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2012;39:1830-8.
101. Mavi A, Cermik TF, Urhan M, Puskulcu H, Basu S, Yu JQ, et al. The effects of estrogen, progesterone, and C-erbB-2 receptor states on 18F-FDG uptake of primary breast cancer lesions. J Nucl Med 2007;48:1266-72.
102. Osborne JR, Port E, Gonen M, Doane A, Yeung H, Gerald W, et al. 18F-FDG PET of locally invasive breast cancer and association of estrogen receptor status with standardized uptake value: microarray and immunohistochemical analysis. J Nucl Med 2010;51:543-50.
103. Sanli Y, Kuyumcu S, Ozkan ZG, Isik G, Karanlik H, Guzelbey B, et al. Increased FDG uptake in breast cancer is associated with prognostic factors. Ann Nucl Med 2012;26:345-50.
104. Straver ME, Aukema TS, Olmos RA, Rutgers EJ, Gilhuijs KG, Schot ME, et al. Feasibility of FDG PET/CT to monitor the response of axillary lymph node metastases to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37:1069-76.
105. Ueda S, Tsuda H, Asakawa H, Shigekawa T, Fukatsu K, Kondo N, et al. Clinicopathological and prognostic relevance of uptake level using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography fusion imaging (18F-FDG PET/CT) in primary breast cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2008;38:250-8.
106. Ueda S, Tsuda H, Saeki T, Omata J, Osaki A, Shigekawa T, et al. Early metabolic response to neoadjuvant letrozole, measured by FDG PET/CT, is correlated with a decrease in the Ki67 labeling index in patients with hormone receptor-positive primary breast cancer: a pilot study. Breast Cancer 2011;18:299-308.
107. Wang CL, MacDonald LR, Rogers JV, Aravkin A, Haseley DR, Beatty JD. Positron emission mammography: correlation of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status and 18F-FDG. Am J Roentgenol 2011;197:W247-55.
108. Yamada T, Mori N, Watanabe M, Kimijima I, Okumoto T, Seiji K, et al. Radiologic-pathologic correlation of ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiographics 2010;30:1183-98.
109. Tse GM, Tan PH, Pang AL, Tang AP, Cheung HS. Calcification in breast lesions: pathologists' perspective. J Clin Pathol 2008;61:145-51.
110. Allred DC, Clark GM, Molina R, Tandon AK, Schnitt SJ, Gilchrist KW, et al. Overexpression of HER-2/neu and its relationship with other prognostic factors change during the progression of in situ toinvasive breast cancer. Hum Pathol 1992;23:974-9.
111. Anders CK, Hsu DS, Broadwater G, Acharya CR, Foekens JA, Zhang Y, et al. Young age at diagnosis correlates with worse prognosis and defines a subset of breast cancers with shared patterns of gene expression. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:3324-30.
112. Boyd NF, Rommens JM, Vogt K, Lee V, Hopper JL, Yaffe MJ, et al. Mammographic breast density as an intermediate phenotype for breast cancer. Lancet Oncol 2005;6:798-808.
113. Dogan BE, Turnbull LW. Imaging of triple-negative breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2012;23(Suppl 6): vi23-9.
114. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:529-36.
115. Campbell HE, Gray AM, Harris AL, Briggs AH, Taylor MA. Estimation and external validation of a new prognostic model for predicting recurrence-free survival for early breast cancer patients in the UK. Br J Cancer 2010;103:776-86.
116. Mook S, Schmidt MK, Rutgers EJ, Van D V, Visser O, Rutgers SM, et al. Calibration and discriminatory accuracy of prognosis calculation for breast cancer with the online Adjuvant! program: a hospital-based retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2009;10:1070-6.