Rossella Rella1, Andrea Contegiacomo1, Enida Bufi1, Sara Mercogliano2, Paolo Belli1,2, Riccardo Manfredi1,2. 1. UOC di Diagnostica per immagini ed Interventistica Generale, Dipartimento di diagnostica per immagini, radioterapia oncologica ed ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Largo A. Gemelli 8, 00168 Roma, Italia. 2. Università Cattolica Sacro Cuore, Largo F. Vito 1, 00168 Roma, Italia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of evidences about the relationship between background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) of the contralateral healthy breast and breast cancer: its association with clinicopathological breast cancer characteristics, its potential as predictive and prognostic biomarker and the biological linkage between BPE and breast cancer. METHODS: A computerized literature search using PubMed and Google Scholar was performed up to June 2020. Two authors independently conducted search, screening, quality assessment, and extraction of data from the eligible studies. Studies were assessed for quality and risk of bias using the revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. RESULTS: Of the 476 articles identified, 22 articles met the inclusion criteria. No significant association was found between BPE and invasiveness, histological cancer type, T- and N-stage, multifocality, lymphatic and vascular invasion and histological tumour grade while the association between BPE and molecular subtypes is still unclear. As predictive biomarker, a greater decrease in BPE during and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy was associated with pathological complete response. Results about the role of BPE as prognostic factor were inconsistent. An association between high BPE and microvessel density, CD34 and VEGF (histological markers of vascularization and angiogenesis) was found. CONCLUSIONS: BPE of the contralateral breast is associated with breast cancer in several aspects, therefore it has been proposed as a tool to refine breast cancer decision-making process. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Additional researches with standardized BPE assessment are needed to translate this emerging biomarker into clinical practice in the era of personalized medicine.
OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of evidences about the relationship between background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) of the contralateral healthy breast and breast cancer: its association with clinicopathological breast cancer characteristics, its potential as predictive and prognostic biomarker and the biological linkage between BPE and breast cancer. METHODS: A computerized literature search using PubMed and Google Scholar was performed up to June 2020. Two authors independently conducted search, screening, quality assessment, and extraction of data from the eligible studies. Studies were assessed for quality and risk of bias using the revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. RESULTS: Of the 476 articles identified, 22 articles met the inclusion criteria. No significant association was found between BPE and invasiveness, histological cancer type, T- and N-stage, multifocality, lymphatic and vascular invasion and histological tumour grade while the association between BPE and molecular subtypes is still unclear. As predictive biomarker, a greater decrease in BPE during and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy was associated with pathological complete response. Results about the role of BPE as prognostic factor were inconsistent. An association between high BPE and microvessel density, CD34 and VEGF (histological markers of vascularization and angiogenesis) was found. CONCLUSIONS: BPE of the contralateral breast is associated with breast cancer in several aspects, therefore it has been proposed as a tool to refine breast cancer decision-making process. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Additional researches with standardized BPE assessment are needed to translate this emerging biomarker into clinical practice in the era of personalized medicine.
Authors: Valencia King; Shari B Goldfarb; Jennifer D Brooks; Janice S Sung; Benjamin F Nulsen; Jolanta E Jozefara; Malcolm C Pike; Maura N Dickler; Elizabeth A Morris Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-07-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jean-Paul Delille; Priscilla J Slanetz; Eren D Yeh; Daniel B Kopans; Elkan F Halpern; Leoncio Garrido Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Bas H M van der Velden; Sjoerd G Elias; Tycho Bismeijer; Claudette E Loo; Max A Viergever; Lodewyk F A Wessels; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-08-08 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jennifer D Brooks; Janice S Sung; Malcolm C Pike; Irene Orlow; Frank Z Stanczyk; Jonine L Bernstein; Elizabeth A Morris Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2018-03-25 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Carrie B Hruska; Katie N Hunt; Amy Lynn Conners; Jennifer R Geske; Kathleen R Brandt; Amy C Degnim; Celine M Vachon; Michael K O'Connor; Deborah J Rhodes Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2019-03-08 Impact factor: 6.466