Intratumoral heterogeneity of the distribution of kinetic parameters in breast cancer: comparison based on the molecular subtypes of invasive breast cancer

Breast Cancer

Volumn 22, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 496-502

  Yamaguchi, Ken ^a,b   Abe, Hiroyuki ^b   Newstead, Gillian M ^b   Egashira, Ryoko ^a   Nakazono, Takahiko ^a   Imaizumi, Takeshi ^a   Irie, Hiroyuki ^a  

^a SAGA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast; Dynamic contrast enhanced study; Kinetic pattern; Molecular subtype; MRI

Indexed keywords

EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR 2; GADODIAMIDE; HORMONE RECEPTOR; ERBB2 PROTEIN, HUMAN; ESTROGEN RECEPTOR; PROGESTERONE RECEPTOR;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; BREAST CARCINOMA; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER STAGING; CELL HETEROGENEITY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; TRIPLE NEGATIVE BREAST CANCER; VOXEL BASED MORPHOMETRY; BREAST TUMOR; COMPARATIVE STUDY; METABOLISM; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; VERY ELDERLY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MIDDLE AGED; RECEPTOR, ERBB-2; RECEPTORS, ESTROGEN; RECEPTORS, PROGESTERONE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TRIPLE NEGATIVE BREAST NEOPLASMS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84940955508     PISSN: 13406868     EISSN: 18804233     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12282-013-0512-0     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB, van de Rijn M, Jeffrey SS, Rees CA, et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2000;406:747–52.
2. Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, Aas T, Geisler S, Johnsen H, et al. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2001;98:10869–74.
3. Perou CM, Borresen-Dale AL. Systems biology and genomics of breast cancer. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2011;3:2.
4. Brenton JD, Carey LA, Ahmed AA, Caldas C. Molecular classification and molecular forecasting of breast cancer: ready for clinical application? J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:7350–60.
5. Tamimi RM, Baer HJ, Marotti J, Galan M, Galaburda L, Fu Y, Deitz AC, et al. Comparison of molecular phenotypes of ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2008;10:R67.
6. Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S, Leutner C, Wardelmann E, Gieseke J, et al. Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology. 1999;211:101–10.
7. Liu PF, Debatin JF, Caduff RF, Kacl G, Garzoli E, Krestin GP. Improved diagnostic accuracy in dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of the breast by combined quantitative and qualitative analysis. British J Radiol. 1998;71:501–9.
8. Siegmann KC, Muller-Schimpfle M, Schick F, Remy CT, Fersis N, Ruck P, et al. MR imaging-detected breast lesions: histopathologic correlation of lesion characteristics and signal intensity data. Am J Roentgenol. 2002;178:1403–9.
9. Baum F, Fischer U, Vosshenrich R, Grabbe E. Classification of hypervascularized lesions in CE MR imaging of the breast. Eur Radiol. 2002;12:1087–92.
10. American College of Radiology (ACR) BI-RADS. Breast Imaging Atlas. In: ACR Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, editor. Magnetic resonance imaging. Reaston: American College of Radiology; 2003.
11. Caramella T, Chapellier C, Ettore F, Raoust I, Chamorey E, Balu-Maestro C. Value of MRI in the surgical planning of invasive lobular breast carcinoma: a prospective and a retrospective study of 57 cases: comparison with physical examination, conventional imaging, and histology. Clin Imaging. 2007;31:155–61.
12. Dietzel M, Baltzer PA, Vag T, Gröschel T, Gajda M, Camara O, et al. Magnetic resonance mammography of invasive lobular versus ductal carcinoma: systematic comparison of 811 patients reveals high diagnostic accuracy irrespective of typing. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2010;34:587–95.
13. Mann RM, Veltman J, Huisman H, Boetes C. Comparison of enhancement characteristics between invasive lobular carcinoma and invasive ductal carcinoma. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011;34:293–300.
14. Monzawa S, Yokokawa M, Sakuma T, Takao S, Hirokaga K, Hanioka K, et al. Mucinous carcinoma of the breast: MRI features of pure and mixed forms with histopathologic correlation. Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:W125–31.
15. Okafuji T, Yabuuchi H, Sakai S, Soeda H, Matsuo Y, Inoue T, et al. MR imaging features of pure mucinous carcinoma of the breast. Eur J Radiol. 2006;60:405–13.
16. Jansen SA, Newstead GM, Abe H, Shimauchi A, Schmidt RA, Karczmar GS. Pure ductal carcinoma in situ: kinetic and morphologic MR characteristics compared with mammographic appearance and nuclear grade. Radiology. 2007;245:684–91.
17. 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.
18. Uematsu T, Kasami M, Yuen S. Triple-negative breast cancer: correlation between MR imaging and pathologic findings. Radiology. 2009;250:638–47.
19. 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.
20. Dogan BE, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Gilcrease M, Dryden MJ, Yang WT. Multimodality imaging of triple receptor-negative tumors with mammography, ultrasound, and MRI. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:1160–6.
21. Tamaki K, Ishida T, Miyashita M, Amari M, Ohuchi N, Tamaki N, et al. Correlation between mammographic findings and corresponding histopathology: potential predictors for biological characteristics of breast diseases. Cancer Sci. 2011;102:2179–85.
22. Choi YJ, Seong MH, Choi SH, Kook SH, Kwag HJ, Park YL, et al. Ultrasound and clinicopathological characteristics of triple receptor-negative breast cancers. J Breast Cancer. 2011;14:119–23.
23. Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Thürlimann B, Senn HJ, et al. Strategies for subtypes—dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2011. Ann Oncol. 2011;22:1736–47.
24. Zhao H, Langerod A, Ji Y, Nowels KW, Nesland JM, Tibshirani R, et al. Different gene expression patterns in invasive lobular and ductal carcinomas of the breast. Mol Biol Cell. 2004;15:2523–36.
25. Weigelt B, Geyer FC, Natrajan R, Lopez-Garcia MA, Ahmad AS, Savage K, et al. The molecular underpinning of lobular histological growth pattern: a genome-wide transcriptomic analysis of invasive lobular carcinomas and grade- and molecular subtype-matched invasive ductal carcinomas of no special type. J Pathol. 2010;220:45–57.
26. Weigelt B, Horlings HM, Kreike B, Hayes MM, Hauptmann M, Wessels LF, et al. Refinement of breast cancer classification by molecular characterization of histological special types. J Pathol. 2008;216:141–50.
27. Yu J, Dabbs DJ, Shuai Y, Niemeier LA, Bhargava R. Classical-type invasive lobular carcinoma with HER2 overexpression: clinical, histologic, and hormone receptor characteristics. Am J Clin Pathol. 2011;136:88–97.
28. Di Saverio S, Gutierrez J, Avisar E. A retrospective review with long term follow up of 11,400 cases of pure mucinous breast carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;111:541–7.
29. Bae SY, Choi MY, Cho DH, Lee JE, Nam SJ, Yang JH. Mucinous carcinoma of the breast in comparison with invasive ductal carcinoma: clinicopathologic characteristics and prognosis. J Breast Cancer. 2011;14:308–13.
30. Fulford LG, Easton DF, Reis-Filho JS, Sofronis A, Gillett CE, Lakhani SR, et al. Specific morphological features predictive for the basal phenotype in grade 3 invasive ductal carcinoma of breast. Histopathology. 2006;49:22–34.
31. Livasy CA, Karaca G, Nanda R, Tretiakova MS, Olopade OI, Moore DT, et al. Phenotypic evaluation of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2006;19:264–71.
32. Tozaki M, Igarashi T, Fukuda K. Positive and negative predictive values of BI-RADS-MRI descriptors for focal breast masses. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2006;5:7–15.