Eun Bi Ryu1, Jung Min Chang2, Mirinae Seo2, Sun Ah Kim2, Ji He Lim2, Woo Kyung Moon3. 1. Department of Radiology, Dongnam Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences Cancer Center, Busan, Korea. 2. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 28 Yongon-dong, Chongno-gu, Seoul 110-744, Korea. 3. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 28 Yongon-dong, Chongno-gu, Seoul 110-744, Korea. moon.wk@snu.ac.kr
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of our study was to evaluate the tumour volume doubling time (TVDT) of molecular breast cancer subtypes by serial ultrasound (US). METHODS: Sixty-six patients (mean age, 50 years; range, 29-78 years) with invasive breast cancer underwent initial and follow-up breast US examinations (at least three months apart) with no intervention. TVDT was determined using the tumours' greatest dimensions in two orthogonal planes. The results were compared with clinical, imaging, and tumour variables and molecular subtypes (oestrogen receptor [ER]-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 [HER2]-positive, and triple negative) using a multiple linear regression analysis. RESULTS: TVDT exhibited a wide range (46-825 days; median, 141 days) with an overall mean of 193 ± 141 days and mean values of 241 ± 166 days for ER-positive tumours (n = 37), 162 ± 60 days for HER2-positive tumours (n = 12), and 103 ± 43 days for triple-negative tumours (n = 17) (P < 0.0001). In a multivariate regression analysis, compared to other features, only the different molecular breast cancer subtypes showed significant difference in TVDT (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: TVDT differed significantly among the three molecular breast cancer subtypes, with the triple-negative tumours showing the fastest growth. KEY POINTS: Knowledge of tumour volume doubling time provides clues for improving screening. TVDT assessed by serial US differed significantly between breast cancer subtypes. Triple-negative tumours had 2.4-fold shorter TVDT compared to ER-positive tumours. Tumours classified as BI-RADS 3 had shorter TVDT than BI-RADS 4.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of our study was to evaluate the tumour volume doubling time (TVDT) of molecular breast cancer subtypes by serial ultrasound (US). METHODS: Sixty-six patients (mean age, 50 years; range, 29-78 years) with invasive breast cancer underwent initial and follow-up breast US examinations (at least three months apart) with no intervention. TVDT was determined using the tumours' greatest dimensions in two orthogonal planes. The results were compared with clinical, imaging, and tumour variables and molecular subtypes (oestrogen receptor [ER]-positive, humanepidermal growth factor receptor 2 [HER2]-positive, and triple negative) using a multiple linear regression analysis. RESULTS:TVDT exhibited a wide range (46-825 days; median, 141 days) with an overall mean of 193 ± 141 days and mean values of 241 ± 166 days for ER-positive tumours (n = 37), 162 ± 60 days for HER2-positive tumours (n = 12), and 103 ± 43 days for triple-negative tumours (n = 17) (P < 0.0001). In a multivariate regression analysis, compared to other features, only the different molecular breast cancer subtypes showed significant difference in TVDT (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS:TVDT differed significantly among the three molecular breast cancer subtypes, with the triple-negative tumours showing the fastest growth. KEY POINTS: Knowledge of tumour volume doubling time provides clues for improving screening. TVDT assessed by serial US differed significantly between breast cancer subtypes. Triple-negative tumours had 2.4-fold shorter TVDT compared to ER-positive tumours. Tumours classified as BI-RADS 3 had shorter TVDT than BI-RADS 4.
Authors: Wendie A Berg; David O Cosgrove; Caroline J Doré; Fritz K W Schäfer; William E Svensson; Regina J Hooley; Ralf Ohlinger; Ellen B Mendelson; Catherine Balu-Maestro; Martina Locatelli; Christophe Tourasse; Barbara C Cavanaugh; Valérie Juhan; A Thomas Stavros; Anne Tardivon; Joel Gay; Jean-Pierre Henry; Claude Cohen-Bacrie Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst; Inge-Marie Obdeijn; Wim C J Hop; Petrina A Causer; Martin O Leach; Ellen Warner; Linda Pointon; Kimberley Hill; Jan G M Klijn; Ruth M L Warren; Fiona J Gilbert Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-12-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Hanna Tomic; Anna Bjerkén; Gustav Hellgren; Kristin Johnson; Daniel Förnvik; Sophia Zackrisson; Anders Tingberg; Magnus Dustler; Predrag R Bakic Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2022-06-06
Authors: Eduardo de Faria Castro Fleury; Caio Castro; Mario Sergio Campos do Amaral; Décio Roveda Junior Journal: Breast Cancer (Auckl) Date: 2022-05-16