OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to determine whether triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs) with and without androgen receptor (AR) expression have distinguishing imaging features on mammography, breast ultrasound (US), and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. METHODS: AR expression was assessed immunohistochemically in 125 patients with TNBC from a consecutive series of 1,086 operable invasive breast cancers. Two experienced radiologists blinded to clinicopathological findings reviewed all imaging studies in consensus using the BI-RADS lexicon. The imaging and pathological features of 33 AR-positive TNBCs were compared with those of 92 AR-negative TNBCs. RESULTS: The presence of mammographic calcifications with or without a mass (p < 0.001), non-mass enhancement on MR imaging (p < 0.001), and masses with irregular shape or spiculated margins on US (p < 0.001 and p = 0.002) and MR imaging (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001) were significantly associated with AR-positive TNBC. Compared with AR-negative TNBC, AR-positive TNBC was more likely to have a ductal carcinoma in situ component (59.8% vs. 90.9%, p = 0.001) and low Ki-67 expression (30.4% vs. 51.5%, p = 0.030). CONCLUSION: AR-positive and AR-negative TNBCs have different imaging features, and certain imaging findings can be useful to predict AR status in TNBC. KEY POINTS: • Triple-negative breast cancers have distinguishing imaging features according to AR expression. • AR-positive TNBC is associated with calcifications, spiculated masses, and non-mass enhancement. • Multimodality imaging can help predict androgen receptor status in TNBC.
OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to determine whether triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs) with and without androgen receptor (AR) expression have distinguishing imaging features on mammography, breast ultrasound (US), and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. METHODS:AR expression was assessed immunohistochemically in 125 patients with TNBC from a consecutive series of 1,086 operable invasive breast cancers. Two experienced radiologists blinded to clinicopathological findings reviewed all imaging studies in consensus using the BI-RADS lexicon. The imaging and pathological features of 33 AR-positive TNBCs were compared with those of 92 AR-negative TNBCs. RESULTS: The presence of mammographic calcifications with or without a mass (p < 0.001), non-mass enhancement on MR imaging (p < 0.001), and masses with irregular shape or spiculated margins on US (p < 0.001 and p = 0.002) and MR imaging (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001) were significantly associated with AR-positive TNBC. Compared with AR-negative TNBC, AR-positive TNBC was more likely to have a ductal carcinoma in situ component (59.8% vs. 90.9%, p = 0.001) and low Ki-67 expression (30.4% vs. 51.5%, p = 0.030). CONCLUSION:AR-positive and AR-negative TNBCs have different imaging features, and certain imaging findings can be useful to predict AR status in TNBC. KEY POINTS: • Triple-negative breast cancers have distinguishing imaging features according to AR expression. • AR-positive TNBC is associated with calcifications, spiculated masses, and non-mass enhancement. • Multimodality imaging can help predict androgen receptor status in TNBC.
Authors: Brian D Lehmann; Joshua A Bauer; Xi Chen; Melinda E Sanders; A Bapsi Chakravarthy; Yu Shyr; Jennifer A Pietenpol Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Heather I Greenwood; Samantha L Heller; Sungheon Kim; Eric E Sigmund; Sara D Shaylor; Linda Moy Journal: Radiographics Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 5.333
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: Angela A Luck; Andrew J Evans; Jonathan J James; Emad A Rakha; E Claire Paish; Andrew R Green; Ian O Ellis Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Francisco E Vera-Badillo; Arnoud J Templeton; Paulo de Gouveia; Ivan Diaz-Padilla; Philippe L Bedard; Mustafa Al-Mubarak; Bostjan Seruga; Ian F Tannock; Alberto Ocana; Eitan Amir Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-11-22 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Rita A Mukhtar; Christina Yau; Mark Rosen; Vickram J Tandon; Nola Hylton; Laura J Esserman Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2013-06-19 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Marco Macchini; Martina Ponziani; Andrea Prochowski Iamurri; Mirco Pistelli; Mariagrazia De Lisa; Rossana Berardi; Gian Marco Giuseppetti Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2018-06-05 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Rosalind P Candelaria; Beatriz E Adrada; Wei Wei; Alastair M Thompson; Lumarie Santiago; Deanna L Lane; Monica L Huang; Elsa M Arribas; Gaiane M Rauch; W Fraser Symmans; Michael Z Gilcrease; Lei Huo; Bora Lim; Naoto T Ueno; Stacy L Moulder; Wei Tse Yang Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2019-03-21 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Johannes Uhlig; Uwe Fischer; Eva von Fintel; Vera Stahnke; Christina Perske; Joachim Lotz; Susanne Wienbeck Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2017-09-22 Impact factor: 4.243
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: Jin Joo Kim; Jin You Kim; Hie Bum Suh; Lee Hwangbo; Nam Kyung Lee; Suk Kim; Ji Won Lee; Ki Seok Choo; Kyung Jin Nam; Taewoo Kang; Heeseung Park Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-08-04 Impact factor: 5.315