OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to investigate the mammography and ultrasound findings of triple-negative breast cancer and to compare the results with characteristics of ER-positive/PR-negative/HER2-negative breast cancer and ER-negative/PR-negative/HER2-positive breast cancer. METHODS: From January 2007 to October 2008, mammography and ultrasound findings of 245 patients with pathologically confirmed triple-negative (n = 87), ER-positive/PR-negative/HER2-negative (n = 93) or ER-negative/PR-negative/HER2-positive breast cancers (n = 65) were retrospectively reviewed. We also reviewed pathological reports for information on the histological type, histological grade and the status of the biological markers. RESULTS: Triple-negative breast cancers showed a high histological grade. On mammography, triple-negative breast cancers usually presented with a mass (43/87, 49%) or with focal asymmetry (19/87, 22%), and were less associated with calcifications. On ultrasound, the cancers were less frequently seen as non-mass lesions (12/87, 14%), more likely to have circumscribed margins (43/75, 57%), were markedly hypoechoic (36/75, 57%) and less likely to show posterior shadowing (4/75, 5%). Among the three types of breast cancers, ER-negative/PR-negative/HER2-positive breast cancers most commonly had associated calcifications (52/65, 79%) on mammography and were depicted as non-mass lesions (21/65, 32%) on ultrasound. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the imaging findings might be useful in diagnosing triple-negative breast cancer.
OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to investigate the mammography and ultrasound findings of triple-negative breast cancer and to compare the results with characteristics of ER-positive/PR-negative/HER2-negative breast cancer and ER-negative/PR-negative/HER2-positive breast cancer. METHODS: From January 2007 to October 2008, mammography and ultrasound findings of 245 patients with pathologically confirmed triple-negative (n = 87), ER-positive/PR-negative/HER2-negative (n = 93) or ER-negative/PR-negative/HER2-positive breast cancers (n = 65) were retrospectively reviewed. We also reviewed pathological reports for information on the histological type, histological grade and the status of the biological markers. RESULTS: Triple-negative breast cancers showed a high histological grade. On mammography, triple-negative breast cancers usually presented with a mass (43/87, 49%) or with focal asymmetry (19/87, 22%), and were less associated with calcifications. On ultrasound, the cancers were less frequently seen as non-mass lesions (12/87, 14%), more likely to have circumscribed margins (43/75, 57%), were markedly hypoechoic (36/75, 57%) and less likely to show posterior shadowing (4/75, 5%). Among the three types of breast cancers, ER-negative/PR-negative/HER2-positive breast cancers most commonly had associated calcifications (52/65, 79%) on mammography and were depicted as non-mass lesions (21/65, 32%) on ultrasound. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the imaging findings might be useful in diagnosing triple-negative breast cancer.
Authors: Bruce G Haffty; Qifeng Yang; Michael Reiss; Thomas Kearney; Susan A Higgins; Joanne Weidhaas; Lyndsay Harris; Willam Hait; Deborah Toppmeyer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-11-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Hee Jung Shin; Hak Hee Kim; Sun Mi Kim; Gui Young Kwon; Gyungyub Gong; On Koo Cho Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Chad A Livasy; Gamze Karaca; Rita Nanda; Maria S Tretiakova; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Dominic T Moore; Charles M Perou Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Emad A Rakha; Maysa E El-Sayed; Andrew R Green; Andrew H S Lee; John F Robertson; Ian O Ellis Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-01-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Lisa A Carey; E Claire Dees; Lynda Sawyer; Lisa Gatti; Dominic T Moore; Frances Collichio; David W Ollila; Carolyn I Sartor; Mark L Graham; Charles M Perou Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-04-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: C M Perou; T Sørlie; M B Eisen; M van de Rijn; S S Jeffrey; C A Rees; J R Pollack; D T Ross; H Johnsen; L A Akslen; O Fluge; A Pergamenschikov; C Williams; S X Zhu; P E Lønning; A L Børresen-Dale; P O Brown; D Botstein Journal: Nature Date: 2000-08-17 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Wei-Tse Yang; Mark Dryden; Kristine Broglio; Michael Gilcrease; Shaheenah Dawood; Peter J Dempsey; Vicente Valero; Gabriel Hortobagyi; Deann Atchley; Banu Arun Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2007-11-17 Impact factor: 4.872
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
Authors: A Caldarella; D Puliti; E Crocetti; S Bianchi; V Vezzosi; P Apicella; M Biancalani; A Giannini; C Urso; F Zolfanelli; E Paci Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2012-09-09 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Marjan S Bolouri; Sjoerd G Elias; Dorota J Wisner; Spencer C Behr; Randall A Hawkins; Sachiko A Suzuki; Krysta S Banfield; Bonnie N Joe; Nola M Hylton Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-07-22 Impact factor: 11.105