Maria Adele Marino1, Christopher C Riedl2, Maria Bernathova3, Clemens Bernhart4, Pascal A T Baltzer5, Thomas H Helbich6, Katja Pinker7. 1. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria; Department of Biomedical Sciences and Morphologic and Functional Imaging, University of Messina, Via Consolare Valeria 1, 98100, Messina, Italy. Electronic address: mariaadele.marino@gmail.com. 2. Department of Radiology, Molecular Imaging and Therapy Service, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065,USA. Electronic address: riedlc@mskcc.org. 3. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: maria.bernathova@meduniwien.ac.at. 4. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: clemensbernhart@hotmail.com. 5. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: pascal.baltzer@meduniwien.ac.at. 6. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: thomas.helbich@meduniwien.ac.at. 7. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria; Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 300 E 66th Street, New York, NY, 10065, USA. Electronic address: katja.pinker-domenig@meduniwien.ac.at.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess imaging phenotypes of familial breast cancer on mammography (MG), ultrasound (US), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using the fifth edition of the BI-RADS; to investigate inter-observer agreement and to correlate imaging phenotypes with risk status, histopathology, and molecular subtypes derived by immunohistochemical surrogate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-nine women (BRCA-1/2 mutation carriers and women with >20% lifetime risk) were diagnosed with breast cancer within our high-risk screening program. BI-RADS MG, US, and MRI imaging descriptors were correlated with risk status, histopathology, and molecular subtypes derived by immunohistochemical surrogate. Inter-rater agreement for BI-RADS MG, US, and MRI categories was assessed. RESULTS: Fifty-two breast cancers were diagnosed and 98% were detectable in at least one modality. MRI detected more cancers (P < 0.001). No lesion had benign morphology on BI-RADS. BRCA-1 had triple-negative and high-grade tumors in the posterior part and in the upper-outer quadrant (P ≤ 0.01); positive-family-history patients had intermediate-grade neoplasms (P < 0.01) in the middle part (P = 0.04) and in the upper-outer quadrants (P = 0.05). There was moderate inter-rater agreement for the assigned BI-RADS assessment for MG (k = 0.554) and MRI (k = 0.512) and substantial inter-rater agreement for US (k = 0.741). CONCLUSIONS: Imaging phenotypes of familial breast cancers with BI-RADS are malignant in all imaging modalities. Risk status seems to influence cancer location.
OBJECTIVE: To assess imaging phenotypes of familial breast cancer on mammography (MG), ultrasound (US), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using the fifth edition of the BI-RADS; to investigate inter-observer agreement and to correlate imaging phenotypes with risk status, histopathology, and molecular subtypes derived by immunohistochemical surrogate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-nine women (BRCA-1/2 mutation carriers and women with >20% lifetime risk) were diagnosed with breast cancer within our high-risk screening program. BI-RADS MG, US, and MRI imaging descriptors were correlated with risk status, histopathology, and molecular subtypes derived by immunohistochemical surrogate. Inter-rater agreement for BI-RADS MG, US, and MRI categories was assessed. RESULTS: Fifty-two breast cancers were diagnosed and 98% were detectable in at least one modality. MRI detected more cancers (P < 0.001). No lesion had benign morphology on BI-RADS. BRCA-1 had triple-negative and high-grade tumors in the posterior part and in the upper-outer quadrant (P ≤ 0.01); positive-family-history patients had intermediate-grade neoplasms (P < 0.01) in the middle part (P = 0.04) and in the upper-outer quadrants (P = 0.05). There was moderate inter-rater agreement for the assigned BI-RADS assessment for MG (k = 0.554) and MRI (k = 0.512) and substantial inter-rater agreement for US (k = 0.741). CONCLUSIONS: Imaging phenotypes of familial breast cancers with BI-RADS are malignant in all imaging modalities. Risk status seems to influence cancer location.
Authors: Roberto Lo Gullo; Kerri Vincenti; Carolina Rossi Saccarelli; Peter Gibbs; Michael J Fox; Isaac Daimiel; Danny F Martinez; Maxine S Jochelson; Elizabeth A Morris; Jeffrey S Reiner; Katja Pinker Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-01-20 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Ruxandra Iulia Milos; Francesca Pipan; Anastasia Kalovidouri; Paola Clauser; Panagiotis Kapetas; Maria Bernathova; Thomas H Helbich; Pascal A T Baltzer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-06-06 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Isaac Daimiel Naranjo; Peter Gibbs; Jeffrey S Reiner; Roberto Lo Gullo; Caleb Sooknanan; Sunitha B Thakur; Maxine S Jochelson; Varadan Sevilimedu; Elizabeth A Morris; Pascal A T Baltzer; Thomas H Helbich; Katja Pinker Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-05-21
Authors: Roberto Lo Gullo; Hannah Wen; Jeffrey S Reiner; Raza Hoda; Varadan Sevilimedu; Danny F Martinez; Sunitha B Thakur; Maxine S Jochelson; Peter Gibbs; Katja Pinker Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-12-14 Impact factor: 6.639