OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to correlate sonographic and mammographic findings with prognostic factors in patients with node-negative invasive breast cancer. METHODS: Sonographic and mammographic findings in 710 consecutive patients (age range 21-81 years; mean age 49 years) with 715 node-negative invasive breast cancers were retrospectively evaluated. Pathology reports relating to tumour size, histological grade, lymphovascular invasion (LVI), extensive intraductal component (EIC), oestrogen receptor (ER) status and HER-2/neu status were reviewed and correlated with the imaging findings. Statistical analysis was performed using logistic regression analysis and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: On mammography, non-spiculated masses with calcifications were associated with all poor prognostic factors: high histological grade, positive LVI, EIC, HER-2/neu status and negative ER. Other lesions were associated with none of these poor prognostic factors. Hyperdense masses on mammography, the presence of mixed echogenicity, posterior enhancement, calcifications in-or-out of masses and diffusely increased vascularity on sonography were associated with high histological grade and negative ER. Associated calcifications on both mammograms and sonograms were correlated with EIC and HER-2/neu overexpression. The ICC value for the disease extent was 0.60 on mammography and 0.70 on sonography. CONCLUSION: Several sonographic and mammographic features can have a prognostic value in the subsequent treatment of patients with node-negative invasive breast cancer. Radiologists should pay more attention to masses that are associated with calcifications because on both mammography and sonography associated calcifications were predictors of positive EIC and HER-2/neu overexpression.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to correlate sonographic and mammographic findings with prognostic factors in patients with node-negative invasive breast cancer. METHODS: Sonographic and mammographic findings in 710 consecutive patients (age range 21-81 years; mean age 49 years) with 715 node-negative invasive breast cancers were retrospectively evaluated. Pathology reports relating to tumour size, histological grade, lymphovascular invasion (LVI), extensive intraductal component (EIC), oestrogen receptor (ER) status and HER-2/neu status were reviewed and correlated with the imaging findings. Statistical analysis was performed using logistic regression analysis and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: On mammography, non-spiculated masses with calcifications were associated with all poor prognostic factors: high histological grade, positive LVI, EIC, HER-2/neu status and negative ER. Other lesions were associated with none of these poor prognostic factors. Hyperdense masses on mammography, the presence of mixed echogenicity, posterior enhancement, calcifications in-or-out of masses and diffusely increased vascularity on sonography were associated with high histological grade and negative ER. Associated calcifications on both mammograms and sonograms were correlated with EIC and HER-2/neu overexpression. The ICC value for the disease extent was 0.60 on mammography and 0.70 on sonography. CONCLUSION: Several sonographic and mammographic features can have a prognostic value in the subsequent treatment of patients with node-negative invasive breast cancer. Radiologists should pay more attention to masses that are associated with calcifications because on both mammography and sonography associated calcifications were predictors of positive EIC and HER-2/neu overexpression.
Authors: H Satake; K Shimamoto; A Sawaki; R Niimi; Y Ando; T Ishiguchi; T Ishigaki; K Yamakawa; T Nagasaka; H Funahashi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2000 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: A H S Lee; S E Pinder; R D Macmillan; M Mitchell; I O Ellis; C W Elston; R W Blamey Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2005-12-27 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: R Lauria; F Perrone; C Carlomagno; M De Laurentiis; A Morabito; C Gallo; E Varriale; G Pettinato; L Panico; G Petrella Journal: Cancer Date: 1995-11-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Andrew J Evans; Sarah E Pinder; Jonathan J James; Ian O Ellis; Eleanor Cornford Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: A Volpi; F De Paola; O Nanni; A M Granato; P Bajorko; A Becciolini; E Scarpi; A Riccobon; M Balzi; D Amadori Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2000-10 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: T A Thomson; M M Hayes; J J Spinelli; E Hilland; C Sawrenko; D Phillips; B Dupuis; R L Parker Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: I de Mascarel; F Bonichon; M Durand; L Mauriac; G MacGrogan; I Soubeyran; V Picot; A Avril; J M Coindre; M Trojani Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1998-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: I Balslev; C K Axelsson; K Zedeler; B B Rasmussen; B Carstensen; H T Mouridsen Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 1994 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: D Leithner; G J Wengert; T H Helbich; S Thakur; R E Ochoa-Albiztegui; E A Morris; K Pinker Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2017-12-09 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Michael Aho; Abid Irshad; Susan J Ackerman; Madelene Lewis; Rebecca Leddy; Thomas L Pope; Amy S Campbell; Abbie Cluver; Bethany J Wolf; Joan E Cunningham Journal: J Clin Ultrasound Date: 2012-09-20 Impact factor: 0.910
Authors: Ying Chen; Tor A Klingen; Elisabeth Wik; Hans Aas; Einar Vigeland; Knut Liestøl; Øystein Garred; Jan Mæhlen; Lars A Akslen; Jon Lømo Journal: Diagn Pathol Date: 2014-12-19 Impact factor: 2.644