Advertisement

Magnetic resonance (MR) features in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) vs receptor positive cancer (nTNBC)

      Highlights

      • Triple negative breast cancers show 3 distinctive magnetic resonance features compared to receptor positive cancer.
      • Multivariate analysis demonstrates that rim enhancement and unifocality correlate independently with TNBC group.
      • Clinical outcome of TNBC may be predicted by kinetic curves.
      • Contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging can predict histological diagnosis and prognosis of TNBC.

      Abstract

      Few reports in literature describe triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) imaging findings. Aim of the study is to determine MR-features of TNBC compared to receptor positive cancer (nTNBC).
      From May 2014 to May 2015, we retrospectively enrolled 31 consecutive patients with histological diagnosis of TNBC and a control group of 31 consecutive nTNBC observed in the same period, out of 602 cancer, diagnosed in our department in the same year.
      Histopathological analysis and MR-features of TNBC (31 patients) were compared to nTNBC (31 patients). MR-features included dimension, fibroglandular tissue (FGT), background parenchimal enhancement (BPE), mass shape, margins, presence of rim, intratumoral signal intensity in T2w, uni-multifocality, kinetic curves. All patients were examined with MR 1,5 T (Magnetom Simphony Tim, Siemens Healthcare) performing T2w fat-sat and contrast enhanced high temporal and spatial resolution T1w before and after injection of Gadolinium.
      62 staging MR were reviewed. Median age was 50 (30-78ys) with a standard deviation of 10,9. TNBC showed 3 MR features in concordance with current literature: rim enhancement, hyperintensity in T2 sequence and unifocality. Rim enhancement was shown in 67.7% of TNBC (21/31) and 29% of nTNBC (9/31). Higher T2w values were shown in 83.9% of TNBC (26/31) and 58.1% of nTNBC (18/31). Cancer was multifocal in 7/31 (22.6%) of TNBC and 19/31 (61.3%) nTNBC.
      No correlation was found for dimension (p = 0.12), FGT (p = 0.959), BPE (p = 0.596), homogeneity of enhancement (p = 0.43), margins (p = 0.671) and kinetic (p = 0.37).
      Multivariate analysis demonstrated that rim enhancement and unifocality correlated independently with TNBC group. Area under ROC curve of our model is 0.835.
      Furthermore, we evaluated the clinical outcome of all 31 TNBC patients in a follow-up time ranging from 24 months to 36 months separating them in a free-survival group (23 women) and a recurrence group (8 women with local recurrence or distant metastasis): only kinetic curves resulted to be significantly higher in recurrence group (p = 0.042).
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Clinical Imaging
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Cao M.D.
        • Lamichhane S.
        • et al.
        Metabolic characterization of triple negative breast cancer.
        BMC Cancer. 2014; 14: 941
        • Li J.
        • Han X.
        Research and progress in magnetic resonance imaging of triple-negative breast cancer.
        Magn Reson Imaging. 2014; 32: 392-396
        • Newman L.A.
        • Reis-Filho J.
        • et al.
        The 2014 Society of Surgical Oncology Susan G. Komen for the cure symposium: triple-negative breast cancer.
        Ann Surg Oncol. 2015; 22: 874-882
        • Bae M.S.
        • Park S.Y.
        • et al.
        Heterogeneity of triple-negative breast cancer: mammographic, US, and MR imaging features according to androgen receptor expression.
        Eur Radiol. 2015; 25: 419-427
        • Hammond M.E.
        • Hayes D.F.
        • et al.
        American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer.
        J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28 (21): 2784-2795
        • Wolff A.C.
        • Hammond M.E.
        • et al.
        American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer.
        J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25: 118-145
        • Thomassin-Naggara I.
        • Trop I.
        • et al.
        Tips and techniques in breast MRI.
        Diagn Interv Imaging. 2012; 93: 828-839
      1. American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Atlas. 5th ed. 2013 (Reston, VA)
        • Kuhl C.
        The current status of breast MR imaging. Part I. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice.
        Radiology. 2007; 244: 356-378
        • Horvath E.
        • Bañuelos O.R.
        • et al.
        Triple receptor-negative breast cancer. How is it seen on imaging findings?.
        Rev Chil Radiol. 2012; 18: 97-106
        • Krizmanich-Conniff K.
        • Paramangul C.
        • et al.
        Triple negative breast cancer: imaging and clinical characteristics.
        Am J Roentgenol. 2012; 199: 458-464
        • Y Bae M.S.
        • Shin S.U.
        • et al.
        Pretreatment MR imaging features of triple-negative breast cancer: association with response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and recurrence-free survival.
        Radiology. 2016; 281: 392-400
        • Schmitz A.M.
        • Loo C.E.
        • et al.
        Association between rim enhancement of breast cancer on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and patient outcome: impact of subtype.
        Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014; 148: 541-551
        • Dogan B.E.
        • Turnbull L.W.
        Imaging of triple-negative breast cancer imaging of triple-negative breast cancer.
        Ann Oncol Suppl. 2012; 6: vi23-9
        • Sung J.S.
        • Jochelson M.S.
        • et al.
        MR imaging features of triple-negative breast cancers.
        Breast J. 2013; 19: 643-649
        • Dogan B.E.
        • Gonzalez-Angulo A.M.
        • et al.
        Multimodality imaging of triple receptor-negative tumors with mammography, ultrasound, and MRI.
        Am J Roentgenol. 2010; 194: 1160-1166
        • Agrawal G.
        • My Su
        • et al.
        Significance of breast lesion descriptors in the ACR BI-RADS MRI lexicon.
        Cancer. 2009; 115: 1363-1380
        • Li S.P.
        • Padhani A.R.
        • et al.
        Vascular characterisation of triple negative breast carcinomas using dynamic MRI.
        Eur Radiol. 2011; 21: 1364-1373
        • Uematsu T.
        MR imaging of triple-negative breast cancer.
        Breast Cancer. 2011; 18: 161-164
        • Uematsu T.
        Focal breast edema associated with malignancy on T2-weighted images of breast MRI: peritumoral edema, prepectoral edema, and subcutaneous edema.
        Breast Cancer. 2015; 22: 66-70
        • Uematsu T.
        • Kasami Masako
        • et al.
        Triple-negative breast cancer: correlation between MR imaging and pathologic findings.
        Radiology. 2009; 250: 638-647
        • Dietzel M.
        • Zoubi R.
        • et al.
        Association between survival in patients with primary invasive breast cancer and computer aided MRI.
        J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013; 37: 146-155
        • Weidner N.
        • Semple J.P.
        • et al.
        Tumor angiogenesis and metastasis–correlation in invasive breast carcinoma.
        N Engl J Med. 1991; 324: 1-8
        • Pickles M.D.
        • Lowry M.
        • et al.
        Prognostic value of DCE-MRI in breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a comparison with traditional survival indicators.
        Eur Radiol. 2015; 25: 1097-1106
        • Baltzer P.A.
        • Vag T.
        • et al.
        Computer-aided interpretation of dynamic magnetic resonance imaging reflects histopathology of invasive breast cancer.
        Eur Radiol. 2010; 20: 1563-1571