Correlations between the Mammographic Features of Triple-Negative and Triple-Positive Breast Cancer

• Cui Chunxiao

  Department of Radiology, Affiliated Hospital of Medical College, Qingdao University, Qingdao, China

• Lin Qing

  Department of Radiology, Affiliated Hospital of Medical College, Qingdao University, Qingdao, China

• Liu Xiaoqing

  Postgraduate Student of Radiology, Medical College of Qingdao University, Qingdao, China

• Zhao Jiping

  Department of Radiology, Affiliated Hospital of Medical College, Qingdao University, Qingdao, China

 Purpose:To comparative analyze the mammographic findings and clinical characteristics of triple negative breast cancer (estrogen receptor [ER] negative, progesterone receptor [PR] negative, and human epidermal growth factor receptor2 [HER2] negative) and triple positive breast cancer (ER positive, PR positive, and HER2 positive).

Materials and Methods: The immunohistochemistry results of 174 cases of TNBC and 97 cases of TPBC were reviewed. All of the patients had undergone mammography. Retrospectively evaluate the visibility, morphology, distribution and size of the lesions (masses and calcifications) and breast density on mammography of TNBC, and to compare with those of TPBC. The age onset and pathologic type were also reviewed.

Results: TNBC more frequently presented as merely a mass (95/150[63.3%]) than TPBC (34/88 [38.6%]) (P<0.01). TNBC were less frequently associated with microcalcifications (33/150[22%]) than were TPBC (39/88 [44.3%]) (P<0.01). Mammographic density and lesion visibility were similar between the two immunophenotypes. The mean age of TNBC (52[32~87]) was older than that of TPBC (48[26~68]) (P=0.002). Infiltrating ductal carcinoma was the main pathologic type of both groups. Basal-like breast cancer accounted for 47.7% (83/174) of TNBC but didnt express in TPBC (0/97).

Conclusion: The mammographic features of TNBC that lesions showed merely a mass with obscured margins, and less associated with microcalcifications might be useful to diagnose triple negative breast cancer.

Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB, et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 2000; 406: 747-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35021093

Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, et al. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001; 98: 10869-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.191367098

Brenton JD, Carey LA, Ahmed AA, et al. Molecular classification and molecular forecasting of breast cancer: ready for clinical application? J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 7350-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.03.3845

Thike AA, Cheok PY, Jara-Lazaro AR, et al. Triple-negative breast cancer: clinicopathological characteristics and relationship with basal-like breast cancer. Mod Pathol 2010; 23(1): 123-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2009.145

Bauer KR, Brown M, Cress RD, et al. Descriptive analysis of estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, progesterone receptor (PR)-negative, and HER2-negative invasive breast cancer, the so-called triple-negative phenotype: a population-based study from the California cancer Registry. Cancer 2007; 109(9): 1721-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.22618

Rakha EA, Reis-Filho JS, Ellis IO. Basal-like breast cancer: a critical review. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26(15): 2568-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.13.1748

Cheang MC, Voduc D, Bajdik C, et al. Basal-like breast cancer defined by five biomarkers has superior prognostic value than triple-negative phenotype. Clin Cancer Res 2008; 14(5): 1368-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-1658

Haffty BG, Yang Q, Reiss M, et al. Locoregional relapse and distant metastasis in conservatively managed triple negative early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24(36): 5652-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.06.5664

American College of Radiology (ACR). Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). 4th ed, Reston: American College of Radiology 2003; pp. 1-259.

Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Green AR, et al. Prognostic markers in triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer 2007; 109(1): 25-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.22381

Yang WT, Dryden M, Broglio K, et al. Mammographic features of triple receptor-negative primary breast cancers in young premenopausal women. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2008; 111(3): 405-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-007-9810-6

Dogan BE, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Gilcrease M, et al. Multimodality imaging of triple receptor-negative tumors with mammography, ultrasound, and MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194(4): 1160-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.2355

Ko, Lee BH, Kim HA, et al. Triple-negative breast cancer: correlation between imaging and pathological findings. Eur Radiol 2010; 20(5): 1111-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1656-3

Evans AJ, Pinder SE, Ellis JO, et al. Correlations between the mammographic features of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and C-erB-2 oncogene expression. Clin Radiol 1994; 49(8): 559-562. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0009-9260(05)82937-X

• PDF