Can enhancement types on preoperative MRI reflect prognostic factors and surgical outcomes in invasive breast cancer?
- 14 Downloads
This study was conducted in order to evaluate whether enhancement types on preoperative MRI can reflect prognostic factors and surgical outcomes in invasive breast cancer.
Among 484 consecutive patients who underwent preoperative breast MRI from October 2014 to July 2017 for biopsy-proven breast cancer, 313 patients with 315 invasive breast cancers who underwent subsequent surgery were finally included in this study. Two radiologists retrospectively reviewed preoperative MRI findings of these 315 lesions and categorized them to mass, nonmass, and combined type according to enhancement features. Combined type was defined as coexisted mass and nonmass enhancement. Histopathologic results focusing on prognostic factors and surgical outcomes were compared among the three types of lesion using Pearson’s chi-square, linear-by-linear association, Kruskal–Wallis, one-way ANOVA test, and multinomial logistic regression.
Of the cancers analyzed, 198 (62.9%) were mass, 59 (18.7%) were nonmass, and 58 (18.4%) were combined type. The nonmass type showed the smallest invasive tumor size (p < 0.001) and the most common positive HER2 receptor status (p = 0.001). The combined type had the most frequent lymphovascular invasion (p = 0.011), axillary lymph node–positive status (p = 0.031), operation changes (p < 0.001), and first resection margin–positive status (p < 0.001). Initial operation of mastectomy was more frequent in the nonmass and combined types than that in the mass type (p < 0.001). But HER2 receptor status and operation changes showed no statistical significance on multivariate analysis.
Enhancement types on preoperative MRI reflect different prognostic factors and surgical outcomes in invasive breast cancer.
• Morphologic features of contrast media uptake on contrast-enhanced MRI may be related with fundamental biological differences of invasive breast cancers.
• Mass or nonmass enhancement type on preoperative MRI might reflect different prognostic factors and surgical outcomes in invasive breast cancer.
• The combined mass and nonmass enhancement type might be associated with poorer prognosis and worse surgical outcomes.
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imaging Breast neoplasms Prognosis Surgical oncology
American Joint Committee on Cancer
Ductal carcinoma in situ
Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2
Invasive ductal cancer
Magnetic resonance imaging
The authors state that this work has not received any funding.
Compliance with ethical standards
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Hae Kyoung Jung.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Statistics and biometry
No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.
Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.
Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.
• performed at one institution
- 5.Szabó BK, Aspelin P, Kristoffersen Wiberg M, Tot T, Boné B (2003) Invasive breast cancer: correlation of dynamic MR features with prognostic factors. Eur Radiol 13:2425–2435Google Scholar
- 8.Machida Y, Shimauchi A, Tozaki M, Kuroki Y, Yoshida T, Fukuma E (2016) Descriptors of malignant non-mass enhancement of breast MRI: their correlation to the presence of invasion. Acad Radiol 23:687–695Google Scholar
- 10.Jiang L, Zhou Y, Wang Z, Lu X, Chen M, Zhou C (2013) Is there different correlation with prognostic factors between “non-mass” and “mass” type invasive ductal breast cancers? Eur J Radiol 82:1404–1409Google Scholar
- 11.D’Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB et al (2013) ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. American College of Radiology, Reston, VAGoogle Scholar
- 15.Cho YH, Cho KR, Park EK et al (2016) Significance of additional non-mass enhancement in patients with breast cancer on preoperative 3T dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of the breast. Iran J Radiol 23:e30909Google Scholar
- 16.Allred D, Harvey JM, Berardo M, Clark GM (1998) Prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer by immunohistochemical analysis. Mod Pathol 11:155–168Google Scholar
- 21.Brouwer de Koning SG, Vrancken Peeters MTFD, Jóźwiak K, Bhairosing PA, Ruers TJM (2018) Tumor resection margin definitions in breast conserving surgery—a systematic review and meta-analysis of current literature. Clin Breast Cancer 18:e595–e600Google Scholar