Literature DB >> 18180338

Estrogen receptor-negative invasive breast cancer: imaging features of tumors with and without human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 overexpression.

Yingbing Wang1, Debra M Ikeda, Balasubramanian Narasimhan, Teri A Longacre, Richard J Bleicher, Sunita Pal, Roger J Jackman, Stefanie S Jeffrey.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To prospectively determine if estrogen receptor (ER)-negative human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2)-positive and ER-negative HER2-negative breast cancers have distinguishing clinical and imaging features with use of retrospectively identified patients and tissue samples.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant study was institutional review board approved. Informed consent was obtained from living patients and waived for deceased patients. Mean patient age at diagnosis was 53 years (range, 31-84 years). Clinical history; histopathologic, mammographic, and breast sonographic findings; and HER2 status as determined with immunohistochemistry or fluorescent in situ hybridization were evaluated in 56 women with ER-negative breast cancer. Imaging appearances and clinicopathologic characteristics were correlated with tumor HER2 status. P < .05 indicated a significant difference.
RESULTS: Lesion margins on mammograms (P = .028) and sonograms (P = .023), calcifications on mammograms (P = .003), and clinical cancer stage at diagnosis (P = .029) were significantly associated with HER2 status. In contrast to ER-negative HER2-negative tumors, ER-negative HER2-positive tumors were more likely to have spiculated margins (56% vs 15%), be associated with calcifications (65% vs 21%), and be detected at a higher cancer stage (74% vs 57%).
CONCLUSION: Biologic diversity of cancers may manifest in imaging characteristics, and, conversely, studying the range of imaging features of cancers may help refine current molecular phenotypes. (c) RSNA, 2008.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18180338     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2462070169

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  40 in total

Review 1.  Triple-negative breast cancer: present challenges and new perspectives.

Authors:  Franca Podo; Lutgarde M C Buydens; Hadassa Degani; Riet Hilhorst; Edda Klipp; Ingrid S Gribbestad; Sabine Van Huffel; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Jan Luts; Daniel Monleon; Geert J Postma; Nicole Schneiderhan-Marra; Filippo Santoro; Hans Wouters; Hege G Russnes; Therese Sørlie; Elda Tagliabue; Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale
Journal:  Mol Oncol       Date:  2010-04-24       Impact factor: 6.603

2.  Secretory pathway Ca2+ -ATPases promote in vitro microcalcifications in breast cancer cells.

Authors:  Donna Dang; Hari Prasad; Rajini Rao
Journal:  Mol Carcinog       Date:  2017-07-28       Impact factor: 4.784

Review 3.  Imaging Surveillance After Primary Breast Cancer Treatment.

Authors:  Diana L Lam; Nehmat Houssami; Janie M Lee
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2017-01-11       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Mammographic and clinicopathological features of triple-negative breast cancer.

Authors:  B Gao; H Zhang; S-D Zhang; X-Y Cheng; S-M Zheng; Y-H Sun; D-W Zhang; Y Jiang; J-W Tian
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-04-15       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Comparison of visibility of circumscribed masses on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) and 2D mammography: are circumscribed masses better visualized and assured of being benign on DBT?

Authors:  Kazuaki Nakashima; Takayoshi Uematsu; Takahiro Itoh; Kaoru Takahashi; Seiichirou Nishimura; Tomomi Hayashi; Takashi Sugino
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-05-28       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Triple receptor-negative breast cancer: imaging and clinical characteristics.

Authors:  Kristin M Krizmanich-Conniff; Chintana Paramagul; Stephanie K Patterson; Mark A Helvie; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Jamie D Myles; Kiting Jiang; Michael Sabel
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Role of MRI in the staging of breast cancer patients: does histological type and molecular subtype matter?

Authors:  Almir G V Bitencourt; Nara P Pereira; Luciana K L França; Caroline B Silva; Jociana Paludo; Hugo L S Paiva; Luciana Graziano; Camila S Guatelli; Juliana A Souza; Elvira F Marques
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-09-16       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  The role of ultrasonographic findings to predict molecular subtype, histologic grade, and hormone receptor status of breast cancer.

Authors:  Filiz Çelebi; Kezban Nur Pilancı; Çetin Ordu; Filiz Ağacayak; Gül Alço; Serkan İlgün; Dauren Sarsenov; Zeynep Erdoğan; Vahit Özmen
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2015 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.630

9.  Organized screening detects breast cancer at earlier stage regardless of molecular phenotype.

Authors:  Claire M B Holloway; Li Jiang; Marlo Whitehead; Jennifer M Racz; Patti A Groome
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-06-16       Impact factor: 4.553

10.  Stiffness of tumours measured by shear-wave elastography correlated with subtypes of breast cancer.

Authors:  Jung Min Chang; In Ae Park; Su Hyun Lee; Won Hwa Kim; Min Sun Bae; Hye Ryoung Koo; Ann Yi; Seung Ja Kim; Nariya Cho; Woo Kyung Moon
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-05-15       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.