Iranian Journal of Radiology

Published by: Kowsar

Comparison of Different Dynamic Contrast Enhanced-Magnetic Resonance Imaging Descriptors and Clinical Findings Among Breast Cancer Subtypes Determined Based on Molecular Assessment

Serap Dogan 1 , * , Soner Ozmen 2 , Bahadir Oz 3 , Hakan Imamoglu 1 , Guven Kahriman 1 , Gokmen Zararsiz 4 and Mustafa Ozturk 1
Authors Information
1 Department of Radiology, Erciyes University Medical Faculty, Kayseri, Turkey
2 Department of Radiology, Gumushane State Hospital, Gumushane, Turkey
3 Department of General Surgery, Erciyes University Medical Faculty, Kayseri, Turkey
4 Department of Biostatistics, Erciyes University Medical Faculty, Kayseri, Turkey
Article information
  • Iranian Journal of Radiology: October 2018, 15 (4); e64889
  • Published Online: September 22, 2018
  • Article Type: Research Article
  • Received: December 8, 2017
  • Revised: May 23, 2018
  • Accepted: July 28, 2018
  • DOI: 10.5812/iranjradiol.64889

To Cite: Dogan S, Ozmen S, Oz B, Imamoglu H, Kahriman G, et al. Comparison of Different Dynamic Contrast Enhanced-Magnetic Resonance Imaging Descriptors and Clinical Findings Among Breast Cancer Subtypes Determined Based on Molecular Assessment, Iran J Radiol. 2018 ; 15(4):e64889. doi: 10.5812/iranjradiol.64889.

Abstract
Copyright © 2018, Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits copy and redistribute the material just in noncommercial usages, provided the original work is properly cited.
1. Background
2. Objectives
3. Patients and Methods
4. Results
5. Discussion
Footnotes
References
  • 1. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A. AJCC cancer staging manual. 7th ed. New York, NY: Springer; 2009. p. 347-76.
  • 2. 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(6797):747-52. doi: 10.1038/35021093. [PubMed: 10963602].
  • 3. Huber KE, Carey LA, Wazer DE. Breast cancer molecular subtypes in patients with locally advanced disease: impact on prognosis, patterns of recurrence, and response to therapy. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2009;19(4):204-10. doi: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2009.05.004. [PubMed: 19732684].
  • 4. Mazurowski MA, Zhang J, Grimm LJ, Yoon SC, Silber JI. Radiogenomic analysis of breast cancer: Luminal B molecular subtype is associated with enhancement dynamics at MR imaging. Radiology. 2014;273(2):365-72. doi: 10.1148/radiol.14132641. [PubMed: 25028781].
  • 5. Dent R, Trudeau M, Pritchard KI, Hanna WM, Kahn HK, Sawka CA, et al. Triple-negative breast cancer: Clinical features and patterns of recurrence. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(15 Pt 1):4429-34. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-3045. [PubMed: 17671126].
  • 6. 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(5):331-9. doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2012.07.002. [PubMed: 23040001].
  • 7. 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(8):1724-34. doi: 10.1007/s00330-012-2425-2. [PubMed: 22527371].
  • 8. Uematsu T, Kasami M, Yuen S. Triple-negative breast cancer: Correlation between MR imaging and pathologic findings. Radiology. 2009;250(3):638-47. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2503081054. [PubMed: 19244039].
  • 9. Dogan BE, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Gilcrease M, Dryden MJ, Yang WT. Multimodality imaging of triple receptor-negative tumors with mammography, ultrasound, and MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(4):1160-6. doi: 10.2214/AJR.09.2355. [PubMed: 20308526].
  • 10. Grimm LJ, Johnson KS, Marcom PK, Baker JA, Soo MS. Can breast cancer molecular subtype help to select patients for preoperative MR imaging? Radiology. 2015;274(2):352-8. doi: 10.1148/radiol.14140594. [PubMed: 25325325].
  • 11. Ha R, Jin B, Mango V, Friedlander L, Miloshev V, Malak S, et al. Breast cancer molecular subtype as a predictor of the utility of preoperative MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204(6):1354-60. doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.13666. [PubMed: 26001248].
  • 12. American College of Radiology . Breast imaging and reporting and data system (ACR BI-RADS®Atlas). 5th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2013.
  • 13. Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Lee AH, Elston CW, Grainge MJ, Hodi Z, et al. Prognostic significance of Nottingham histologic grade in invasive breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(19):3153-8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.15.5986. [PubMed: 18490649].
  • 14. Lam SW, Jimenez CR, Boven E. Breast cancer classification by proteomic technologies: Current state of knowledge. Cancer Treat Rev. 2014;40(1):129-38. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2013.06.006. [PubMed: 23891266].
  • 15. Kyndi M, Sorensen FB, Knudsen H, Overgaard M, Nielsen HM, Overgaard J, et al. Estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, HER-2, and response to postmastectomy radiotherapy in high-risk breast cancer: The Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(9):1419-26. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.5565. [PubMed: 18285604].
  • 16. Kato F, Kudo K, Yamashita H, Wang J, Hosoda M, Hatanaka KC, et al. Differences in morphological features and minimum apparent diffusion coefficient values among breast cancer subtypes using 3-tesla MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(1):96-102. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.10.018. [PubMed: 26724653].
  • 17. 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(1):10-8. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2008.9.1.10. [PubMed: 18253071]. [PubMed Central: PMC2627175].
  • 18. Carey LA, Dees EC, Sawyer L, Gatti L, Moore DT, Collichio F, et al. The triple negative paradox: primary tumor chemosensitivity of breast cancer subtypes. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(8):2329-34. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-1109. [PubMed: 17438091].
  • 19. Sorlie T, Tibshirani R, Parker J, Hastie T, Marron JS, Nobel A, et al. Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100(14):8418-23. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0932692100. [PubMed: 12829800]. [PubMed Central: PMC166244].
  • 20. Alili C, Pages E, Curros Doyon F, Perrochia H, Millet I, Taourel P. Correlation between MR imaging - prognosis factors and molecular classification of breast cancers. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2014;95(2):235-42. doi: 10.1016/j.diii.2014.01.002. [PubMed: 24525088].
  • 21. Boudin L, Chabannon C, Sfumato P, Sabatier R, Bertucci F, Tarpin C, et al. Immunohistochemical subtypes predict survival in metastatic breast cancer receiving high-dose chemotherapy with autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Eur J Cancer. 2016;57:118-26. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2016.01.005. [PubMed: 26918737].
  • 22. Jimenez RE, Wallis T, Visscher DW. Centrally necrotizing carcinomas of the breast: A distinct histologic subtype with aggressive clinical behavior. Am J Surg Pathol. 2001;25(3):331-7. doi: 10.1097/00000478-200103000-00007. [PubMed: 11224603].
  • 23. Trop I, LeBlanc SM, David J, Lalonde L, Tran-Thanh D, Labelle M, et al. Molecular classification of infiltrating breast cancer: Toward personalized therapy. Radiographics. 2014;34(5):1178-95. doi: 10.1148/rg.345130049. [PubMed: 25208275].
  • 24. Schnall MD, Blume J, Bluemke DA, DeAngelis GA, DeBruhl N, Harms S, et al. Diagnostic architectural and dynamic features at breast MR imaging: Multicenter study. Radiology. 2006;238(1):42-53. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2381042117. [PubMed: 16373758].
Creative Commons License Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 4.0 International License .

Search Relations:

Author(s):

Article(s):

Create Citiation Alert
via Google Reader

Readers' Comments