OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the correlation of oestrogen receptor (ER) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status with the probability of malignancy (POM) of mammographic calcifications in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). METHODS: A total of 101 women (age range, 27-83 years) with pure DCIS that presented as mammographic calcifications were included. Three radiologists independently reviewed mammograms according to the BI-RADS lexicon and provided 100-point POM scores and a BI-RADS category. ER, HER2 and breast cancer subtypes were determined using immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridisation. Pairwise correlations between POM and IHC biomarker scores were calculated, and mammographic features were compared between breast cancer subtypes. RESULTS: HER2 level positively correlated with the POM score (P < 0.0001) and BI-RADS category (P < 0.0001), and ER level inversely correlated with the POM score (P < 0.013) and BI-RADS category (P < 0.010). Fine linear branching (P = 0.004) and segmental (P = 0.014) calcifications were significantly associated with HER2-positive cancers, and clustered calcifications were more frequently observed in ER-positive cancers (P = 0.014). CONCLUSION: HER2 status in DCIS correlated positively with the POM of mammographic calcifications, as determined by radiologists on the basis of the BI-RADS lexicon. KEY POINTS: • Prediction of malignancy on mammographic ductal carcinoma in situ is difficult. • HER2 level correlated positively with the probability of malignancy assigned by radiologists. • ER level correlated inversely with the probability of malignancy assigned by radiologists. • HER2-positive DCIS more frequently exhibited fine linear branching or segmental calcifications. • ER-positive DCIS more frequently exhibited clustered calcifications.
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the correlation of oestrogen receptor (ER) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status with the probability of malignancy (POM) of mammographic calcifications in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). METHODS: A total of 101 women (age range, 27-83 years) with pure DCIS that presented as mammographic calcifications were included. Three radiologists independently reviewed mammograms according to the BI-RADS lexicon and provided 100-point POM scores and a BI-RADS category. ER, HER2 and breast cancer subtypes were determined using immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescence in situ hybridisation. Pairwise correlations between POM and IHC biomarker scores were calculated, and mammographic features were compared between breast cancer subtypes. RESULTS:HER2 level positively correlated with the POM score (P < 0.0001) and BI-RADS category (P < 0.0001), and ER level inversely correlated with the POM score (P < 0.013) and BI-RADS category (P < 0.010). Fine linear branching (P = 0.004) and segmental (P = 0.014) calcifications were significantly associated with HER2-positive cancers, and clustered calcifications were more frequently observed in ER-positive cancers (P = 0.014). CONCLUSION:HER2 status in DCIS correlated positively with the POM of mammographic calcifications, as determined by radiologists on the basis of the BI-RADS lexicon. KEY POINTS: • Prediction of malignancy on mammographic ductal carcinoma in situ is difficult. • HER2 level correlated positively with the probability of malignancy assigned by radiologists. • ER level correlated inversely with the probability of malignancy assigned by radiologists. • HER2-positive DCIS more frequently exhibited fine linear branching or segmental calcifications. • ER-positive DCIS more frequently exhibited clustered calcifications.
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Annette M Molinaro; Mona L Gauthier; Hal K Berman; Fred Waldman; James Bennington; Henry Sanchez; Cynthia Jimenez; Kim Stewart; Karen Chew; Britt-Marie Ljung; Thea D Tlsty Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2010-04-28 Impact factor: 13.506
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: Antonio C Wolff; M Elizabeth H Hammond; Jared N Schwartz; Karen L Hagerty; D Craig Allred; Richard J Cote; Mitchell Dowsett; Patrick L Fitzgibbons; Wedad M Hanna; Amy Langer; Lisa M McShane; Soonmyung Paik; Mark D Pegram; Edith A Perez; Michael F Press; Anthony Rhodes; Catharine Sturgeon; Sheila E Taube; Raymond Tubbs; Gail H Vance; Marc van de Vijver; Thomas M Wheeler; Daniel F Hayes Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-12-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Anupama Sharma; Ursula Koldovsky; Shuwen Xu; Rosemarie Mick; Robert Roses; Elizabeth Fitzpatrick; Susan Weinstein; Harvey Nisenbaum; Bruce L Levine; Kevin Fox; Paul Zhang; Gary Koski; Brian J Czerniecki Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-01-17 Impact factor: 6.860
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: Susanne Wienbeck; Uwe Fischer; Christina Perske; Andreas Wienke; Hans Jonas Meyer; Joachim Lotz; Alexey Surov Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2017-06-27 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: Wenjing Zhou; Thomas Sollie; Tibor Tot; Carl Blomqvist; Shahin Abdsaleh; Göran Liljegren; Fredrik Wärnberg Journal: Int J Breast Cancer Date: 2017-02-14
Authors: Alexey Surov; Paola Clauser; Yun-Woo Chang; Lihua Li; Laura Martincich; Savannah C Partridge; Jin You Kim; Hans Jonas Meyer; Andreas Wienke Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 6.466