PURPOSE: To compare the MRI features between estrogen receptor (ER) positive and negative breast cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Breast MRI of 90 consecutive patients confirmed with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), 51 ER positive and 39 ER negative, were analyzed. The tumor morphology and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) kinetics were evaluated based on the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) MRI lexicon and compared. Enlarged axillary lymph nodes on MRI and choline (Cho) detection using MR spectroscopy (MRS) were also analyzed and compared. For patients receiving axillary node dissection the pathological nodal status was also compared. RESULTS: ER negative breast cancer had bigger tumors compared to ER positive cancer (3.6 +/- 2.0 cm vs. 1.8 +/- 1.3 cm, P < 0.00005). ER negative cancer was more likely to exhibit nonmass type enhancements compared to ER positive cancer (P < 0.005). Enlarged axillary lymph nodes were more frequently identified on MRI in ER negative compared to ER positive patients (P < 0.05). After excluding patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy, auxiliary lymph node status did not show significant difference between ER positive and ER negative cancer on MRI and pathology. ER negative cancer was more likely to show the malignant type enhancement kinetics (P = 0.15), rim enhancement (P = 0.15), and Cho detection on MRS (P = 0.23) compared to ER positive cancer, but it did not reach a level of statistical significance. CONCLUSION: ER negative breast cancer was more aggressive, with larger tumor size, more non-mass-type enhancement lesions, and a higher percentage showing enlarged axillary nodes on MRI. These features might be related to its poorer cellular differentiation and/or a higher angiogenesis. (c) 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
PURPOSE: To compare the MRI features between estrogen receptor (ER) positive and negative breast cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Breast MRI of 90 consecutive patients confirmed with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), 51 ER positive and 39 ER negative, were analyzed. The tumor morphology and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) kinetics were evaluated based on the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) MRI lexicon and compared. Enlarged axillary lymph nodes on MRI and choline (Cho) detection using MR spectroscopy (MRS) were also analyzed and compared. For patients receiving axillary node dissection the pathological nodal status was also compared. RESULTS:ER negative breast cancer had bigger tumors compared to ER positive cancer (3.6 +/- 2.0 cm vs. 1.8 +/- 1.3 cm, P < 0.00005). ER negative cancer was more likely to exhibit nonmass type enhancements compared to ER positive cancer (P < 0.005). Enlarged axillary lymph nodes were more frequently identified on MRI in ER negative compared to ER positive patients (P < 0.05). After excluding patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy, auxiliary lymph node status did not show significant difference between ER positive and ER negative cancer on MRI and pathology. ER negative cancer was more likely to show the malignant type enhancement kinetics (P = 0.15), rim enhancement (P = 0.15), and Cho detection on MRS (P = 0.23) compared to ER positive cancer, but it did not reach a level of statistical significance. CONCLUSION:ER negative breast cancer was more aggressive, with larger tumor size, more non-mass-type enhancement lesions, and a higher percentage showing enlarged axillary nodes on MRI. These features might be related to its poorer cellular differentiation and/or a higher angiogenesis. (c) 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Bruce L Daniel; Michelle N Mariano; Kent N Nowels; Robyn L Birdwell; Kathy J Fong; Pam S Desmond; Sylvia Plevritis; Lara A Stables; Marowan Zakhour; Robert J Herfkens; Debra M Ikeda Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: S H Ali; A L O'Donnell; D Balu; M B Pohl; M J Seyler; S Mohamed; S Mousa; P Dandona Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2000-12-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Dora Fuckar; Andrea Dekanić; Sanja Stifter; Elvira Mustać; Mira Krstulja; Fran Dobrila; Nives Jonjić Journal: Int J Surg Pathol Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 1.271
Authors: Thomas C Putti; Dalia M Abd El-Rehim; Emad A Rakha; Claire E Paish; Andrew H S Lee; Sarah E Pinder; Ian O Ellis Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Arvind Chopra; Liang Shan; W C Eckelman; Kam Leung; Martin Latterner; Stephen H Bryant; Anne Menkens Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 3.488
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
Authors: Pascal A T Baltzer; Tibor Vag; Matthias Dietzel; Sebastian Beger; Christian Freiberg; Mieczyslaw Gajda; Oumar Camara; Werner A Kaiser Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-03-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Baishali Chaudhury; Mu Zhou; Dmitry B Goldgof; Lawrence O Hall; Robert A Gatenby; Robert J Gillies; Bhavika K Patel; Robert J Weinfurtner; Jennifer S Drukteinis Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Mariarosaria Incoronato; Anna Maria Grimaldi; Carlo Cavaliere; Marianna Inglese; Peppino Mirabelli; Serena Monti; Umberto Ferbo; Emanuele Nicolai; Andrea Soricelli; Onofrio Antonio Catalano; Marco Aiello; Marco Salvatore Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2018-04-25 Impact factor: 9.236