Correlation of contrast-enhanced ultrasound features with prognostic factors in invasive ductal carcinomas of the breast

Abstract

Objectives

To correlate contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) features with pathological prognostic factors of breast invasive ductal carcinomas (IDCs).

Methods

169 patients who were admitted to our hospital with confirmed IDCs diagnosed between August 2017 and June 2019 were selected. CEUS indicators included the time of contrast agent entered the lesion, the degree of enhancement, the boundary of the lesion, whether there was perfusion defect and nourishing blood vessels, and etc. These parameters correlated with traditional prognostic factors (tumour size, histological grade, axillary lymph node status) and immunohistochemical biomarkers (ER, PR, c-erbB-2, Ki-67, and TOPO-II).

Results

Perfusion defects after enhancement were predictive factors of PR negative expression (r = − 0.318, OR = 0.239) and TOPO-II overexpression (r = 0.284, OR = 3.577). Centripetal enhancement was negatively correlated with ER expression (r = − 0.350, OR = 0.246). The lesions with a larger range after enhancement than the conventional ultrasound had a higher histological grade (r = 0.215). Perfusion defects were positively correlated with lymph node metastasis (r = 0.221) and negatively correlated with the expression of ER and PR (r = − 0.342, r = − 0.318).

Conclusions

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound features of IDCs have a certain correlation with pathological prognostic factors, which is conducive in assessing the prognosis of these patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. 1.

    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:7–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Zhang YX, Wang XM, Kang S, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in qualitative diagnosis of sentinel lymph node metastasis in breast cancer: a meta-analysis. J Cancer Res Ther. 2015;11(4):697–703.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Yi M, Huo L, Koenig KB, et al. Which threshold for ER positivity? A retrospective study based on 9639 patients. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(5):1004–11.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Liu S, Chia SK, Mehl E, et al. Progesterone receptor is a significant factor associated with clinical outcomes and effect of adjuvant tamoxifen therapy in breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;119(1):53–61.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Tsai-Pflugfelder M, Liu LF, Liu AA, et al. Cloning and sequencing of cDNA encoding human DNA topoisomerase II and localization of the gene to chromosome region 17q21-22. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1988;85(19):7177–81.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Ji CL, Li XL, He YP, et al. Quantitative parameters of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in breast invasive ductal carcinoma: the correlation with pathological prognostic factors. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2017;66(4):333–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Ma X, Liu R, Zhu C, Zhang J, Ling W. Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced sonography for differentiation of breast lesions: a meta-analysis. J Ultrasound Med. 2016;35(10):2095–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Amioka A, Masumoto N, Gouda N, Kajitani K, Shigematsu H, Emi A, Kadoya T, Okada M. Ability of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography to determine clinical responses of breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2016;46(4):303–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Zhao J, Zhang J, Zhu QL, et al. The value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for sentinel lymph node identification and characterisation in pre-operative breast cancer patients: a prospective study. Eur Radiol. 2018;28(4):1654–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Zhao YX, Liu S, Hu YB, et al. Diagnostic and prognostic values of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in breast cancer: a retrospective study. Onco Targets Ther. 2017;10:1123–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological gra- de in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology. 2002;41(3A):154–61.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Iwamoto T, Booser D, Valero V, et al. Estrogen receptor (ER) mRNA and ER-related gene expression in breast cancers that are 1% to 10% ER-positive by immunohistochemistry. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(7):729–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    de Azambuja E, Cardoso F, de Castro G Jr, et al. Ki-67 as prognostic marker in early breast cancer: a meta-analysis of published studies involving 12,155 patients. Br J Cancer. 2007;96(10):1504–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007;131(1):18–43.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Cady B, StoneSchuler JQ, Thakur R, et al. The new era in breastcancer:invasion, size, and nodal involvement dramatically decreasing as a result of mammographics Greening. Arch Surg. 1996;131(3):301–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Wang Z, Zhou Q, Liu J, et al. Tumor size of breast invasive ductal cancer measured with contrast-enhanced ultrasound predicts regional lymph node metastasis and N stage. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2014;7(10):6985–91.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Christgen M, Länger F, Kreipe H. Histological grading of breast cancer. Pathologe. 2016;37(4):328–36.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Cunha S, Gano L, Morais GR, et al. Progesterone receptor targeting with radiolabelled steroids: an approach in predicting breast cancer response to therapy. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2013;137(223–2):41.

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Gown AM. Current issues in ER and HER2 testing by IHC in breast cancer. Mod Pathol. 2008;21(Suppl 2):S8–15.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Polley MY, Leung SC, McShane LM, et al. An international Ki67 reproducibility study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(24):1897–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Mori N, Ota H, Mugikura S, et al. Luminal-type breast cancer: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficients with the Ki-67 labeling index. Radiology. 2015;274(1):66–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Tokiniwa H, Horiguchi J, Takata D, et al. Topoisomerase II alpha expression and the Ki-67 labeling index correlate with prognostic factors in estrogen receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor type-2-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2012;19(4):309–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Au FW, Ghai S, Lu FI, et al. Histological grade and immunohistochemical biomarkers of breast cancer: correlation to ultrasound features. J Ultrasound Med. 2017;36(9):1883–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Szabó BK, Saracco A, Tánczos E, et al. Correlation of contrast-enhanced ultrasound kinetics with prognostic factors in invasive breast cancer. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(12):3228–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Liping Guo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

The authors have no conflicts of interest with any person or organization.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, J., Yuan, M., Yang, L. et al. Correlation of contrast-enhanced ultrasound features with prognostic factors in invasive ductal carcinomas of the breast. Jpn J Radiol (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-020-00994-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Contrast-enhanced ultrasound
  • Prognostic factors
  • Invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast