Correlative study on MRI morphologic features, pathology, and molecular biology of breast cancer

  • Rong Chen
  • Shuigen Gong
  • Weiguo Zhang
  • Jinhua Chen
  • Shuangwu He
  • Baohua Liu
  • Zengpeng Li
Original Articles



To investigate the correlation among MRI morphologic features, pathology, and molecular biology of breast cancer.


MRI was used to analyze the morphologic features of breast cancers of 78 patients before operation. The mastectomy specimens of the breast neoplasms were immunohistochemically stained, and the expression of the estrogen (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), C—erbB—2, P53, and the distribution of microvessel density (MVD) measured. The pathologic results were compared with the MRI features.


Among the 80 breast cancers, ER positive expression was positively correlated with the spicular contour of breast cancers (P<0.01 ), while showing a significant inverse correlation with the T—stage (P<0.05). C—erbB —2 and P53 positive expression were positively correlated with the necrotic center of the cancers (P<0.05). The expression of. PR was not significantly correlated with the spicular contour, obscure margin, necrotic center, and T—stage of these cancers (P>0.05). Among 41 breast cancers examined with dynamic contrast enhanced MR, there was a positive correlation between the spatial distribution of the contrast agent and MVD (P<0.01).


To a certain extent there is some correlation among the MRI morphologic features, pathology, and molecular biological factors in breast cancer. The biological behavior and prognosis of breast cancer can be assessed based on MRI features.


breast neoplasm magnetic resonance imaging pathology molecular biology 


  1. 1.
    Pan P, Liu AL, Song QW, et al. Correlation of MR imaging characterizations and histologic microvessel density in hepatocellular carcinoma. Chin J Radiol. 2002; 36:420–424.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Peng XB, Lin YQ, Luo YH, et al. The correlation between CT appearance and the structure and abnormal expression of P53 gene in peripheral lung cancer. Chin J Med Imaging. 2000; 8:210–212.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Liu JK, Zeng. JZH, Zhou JH. Study on the correlation between CT appearance and DNA conients in peripheral lung adenocarcinomas and squamous —cell carcinomas. Chin J Radiol. 1996; 30:15–19.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sobin LH, Hemanek P, Hutter RV. TNM classification of malignant tumors. A comparison between the new (1987) and the old editions. Cancer. 1988; 61:2310–2314.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fizgibbons PL, Page DL, Weaver D, et al. Prognostic factors in breast cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000; 124:966–978.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Paradiso A, Mangia A, Barletta A, et al. Mammography and morphobiologic characteristics of human breast cancer. Tumori. 1993; 79:422–426.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lamb PM, Perry NM, Vinnicombe SJ, et al. Correlation between ultrasound characteristics, mammographic findings and histological grade in patients with invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. Clin Radio. 2000; 55:40–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tan PH, Ho JT, Ng EH, et al. Pathologic —radiologie correlations in screen—detected ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: findings of the Singapore breast screening project. Int J Cancer. 2000; 90:231–236.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sardanelli F, Rescinito G, Giordano CD, et al. MR dynamic enhancement of breast lesions: high temporal resolution during the first —minute versus eight —minute study. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2000; 24:724–731.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Esseman L, Hylton N, George T, et al. Contrast—enhanced magnetic resonance imaging to assess tumor histopathology and angiogenesis in breast carcirioma. Breast J. 1999; 5:13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liu PF, Bao RX, Niu Y, et al. Angiogenesis and dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of benign and malignant breast lesions: preliminary results. Chin J Radiol. 2002; 36:967–972.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Buadu LD, Murakami J, Murayma S, et al. Patterns of peripheral enhancement in breast masses: correlation of findings on contrast medium enhanced MRI with histologie features and tumor angiogenesis. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1997; 21:421–430.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Buadu LD, Murakami J, Murayma S, et al. Breast lesions: correlation of contrast medium enhancement patterns on MR images with histologie findings and tumor angiogenesis. Radiology. 1996;200:639–649.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Van Dijke CF, Brasch RC, Roberts TP, et al. Mammary carcinoma model: correlation of macromolecular contrast-enhanced MR imaging characterizations of tumor microvasculature and histologie capillary density. Radiology, 1996; 198:813–818.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Matsubayashi R, Matsuo Y, Edakuni G, et al. Breast masses with peripheral rim enhancement on dynamic contrast — enhanced MR images: correlation of MR findings with histologie features and expression of growth factors. Radiology. 2000; 217:841–848.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wiig H, Tveit E, Hultborn R, et al. Interstitial fluid pressure in DMBA —induced rat mammary tumors. Scand J Clin Invest, 1982; 42:159–164.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Chinese Anti-Cancer Association and Springer 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rong Chen
    • 1
  • Shuigen Gong
    • 1
  • Weiguo Zhang
  • Jinhua Chen
    • 1
  • Shuangwu He
    • 1
  • Baohua Liu
    • 1
  • Zengpeng Li
    • 1
  1. 1.Dpartment of Radiology, Daping HospitalThird Military Medical UniversityChongqingChina

Personalised recommendations