Correlation between conventional ultrasound features combined with contrast-enhanced ultrasound patterns and pathological prognostic factors in malignant non-mass breast lesions
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online December 27, 2023
Correlation between conventional ultrasound features combined with contrast-enhanced ultrasound patterns and pathological prognostic factors in malignant non-mass breast lesions
To investigate the correlation between ultrasound performance and prognostic factors in malignant non-mass breast lesions (NMLs).
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
This study included 106 malignant NMLs in 104 patients. Different US features and contrast enhancement patterns were evaluated. Prognostic factors, including histological types and grades, axillary lymph node and peritumoral lymphovascular status, estrogen and progesterone receptor status and the expression of HER-2 and Ki-67 were determined. A chi-square test and logistic regression analysis were used to analyse possible associations.
RESULTS:
Lesion size (OR: 3.08, p = 0.033) and posterior echo attenuation (OR: 8.38, p < 0.001) were useful in reflecting malignant NMLs containing an invasive carcinoma component. Posterior echo attenuation (OR: 7.51, p = 0.003) and unclear enhancement margin (OR: 6.50, p = 0.018) were often found in tumors with axillary lymph node metastases. Peritumoural lymphovascular invasion mostly exhibited posterior echo attenuation (OR: 3.84, p = 0.049) and unclear enhancement margin (OR: 8.68, p = 0.042) on ultrasound images. Perfusion defect was a comparatively accurate enhancement indicator for negative ER (OR: 2.57, p = 0.041) and PR (OR: 3.04, p = 0.008) expression. Calcifications (OR: 3.03, p = 0.025) and enlarged enhancement area (OR: 5.36, p = 0.033) imply an increased risk of positive HER-2 expression. Similarly, Calcifications (OR: 4.13, p = 0.003) and enlarged enhancement area (OR: 11.05, p < 0.001) were valid predictors of high Ki-67 proliferation index.
CONCLUSION:
Ultrasound performance is valuable for non-invasive prediction of prognostic factors in malignant NMLs.
SungH, FerlayJ, SiegelRL, LaversanneM, SoerjomataramI, JemalA, BrayF. Global Cancer Statistics GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–49.
2.
DuJ, LiFH, FangH, XiaJG, ZhuCX. Correlation of real-time gray scale contrast-enhanced ultrasonography with microvessel density and vascular endothelial growth factor expression for assessment of angiogenesis in breast lesions. J Ultrasound Med. 2008;27(6):821–31.
3.
YuMQ, ZhangLL, JiangLP, ZhouAY. The value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the diagnosis of BI-RADS-US 4a lesions less than 2 cm in diameter. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2008;83(3):195–205.
4.
PhungMT, TinTin S, ElwoodJMPrognostic models for breast cancer: a systematic review. BMC Cancer. 2019;19(1):230.
5.
EvansA, SimYT, LawsonB, MacaskillJ, JordanL, ThompsonA. The value of prognostic ultrasound features of breast cancer in different molecular subtypes with a focus on triple negative disease. Breast Cancer. 2022;29(2):296–301.
6.
ChenJ, LiCX, ShaoSH, YaoMH, SuYJ, WuR. The association between conventional ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound appearances and pathological features in small breast cancer. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2022;80(4):413–22.
7.
WanCF, DuJ, FangH, LiFH, ZhuJS, LiuQ. Enhancement patterns and parameters of breast cancers at contrast-enhanced US: correlation with prognostic factors. Radiology. 2012;262(2):450–9.
8.
HsuHH, ChangTH, ChouYC, PengYJ, KoKH, ChangWC, LinYP, HsuGC, YuJC. Breast Nonmass Enhancement Detected with MRI: Uility and Lesion Characterization with Second-Look Ultrasonography. Breast J. 2015;21(6):579–87.
9.
ParkKW, ParkS, ShonI, KimMJ, HanBK, KoEY, KoES, ShinJH, KwonMR, ChoiJS. Non-mass lesions detected by breast US: stratification of cancer risk for clinical management. Eur Radiol. 2021;31(3):1693–706.
10.
ZhangF, JinL, LiG, JiaC, ShiQ, DuL, WuR. The role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the diagnosis of malignant non-mass breast lesions and exploration of diagnostic criteria. Br J Radiol. 1120;94(1120):20200880.
11.
GuoW, LiF, JiaC, WangT, ZhangX, YaoG, ShiX, BaiM. The clinical value of conventional ultrasound combined with contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the evaluation of BI-RADS 4 lesions detected by magnetic resonance imaging. Br J Radiol2022;95(1136):20220025.
12.
GuoW, WangT, LiF, JiaC, ZhengS, ZhangX, BaiM. Non-mass Breast Lesions: Could Multimodal Ultrasound Imaging Be Helpful for Their Diagnosis? Diagnostics (Basel). 2022;12(12):2923.
13.
ZhangF, LiG, JinL, JiaC, ShiQ, WuR. Diagnostic value of Doppler imaging for malignant non-mass breast lesions: with different diagnostic criteria for older and younger women: first results. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2022;81(2):123–34.
14.
FujimotoA, KosakaY, HasebeT, SaekiT. Hidden breast cancer after breast augmentation, not presenting as a hypoechoic mass lesion, diagnosed using colour Doppler ultrasound. BMJ Case Ree. 2021;14(9):242742.
15.
StrangLR, SunJ, SunW, BoulwareD, KilukJV, LeeMC, KhazaiL, LarongaC. Characteristics of Microinvasive Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Versus Noninvasive and Invasive Breast Cancer. J Surg Res. 2020;254378–83.
16.
YipCH, RhodesAEstrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. Future Oncol. 2014;10(14):2293–301.
17.
PartridgeSC, KazerouniAS. Editorial for “Contrasts Between Diffusion-Weighted Imaging and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MR in Diagnosing Malignancies of Breast Nonmass Enhancement Lesions Based on Morphologic Assessment". J Magn Reson Imaging. 2023;58(3):975–6.
18.
ItoT, UenoE, EndoT, OmotoK, KuwajimaA, TaniguchiN, TsunodaH, TohnoE, HashimotoH, FujimotoY, WatanabeT. The Japan Society of Ultrasonics in Medicine guidelines on non-mass abnormalities of the breast. J Med Ultrason. 2023;50(3):331–9.
19.
KoKH, HsuHH, YuJC, PengYJ, TungHJ, ChuCM, ChangTH, ChangWC, WuYC, LinYP, HsuGC. Non-mass-like breast lesions at ultrasonography: feature analysis and BI-RADS assessment. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84(1):77–85.
20.
van DiestPJ, van der WallE, BaakJP. Prognostic value of proliferation in invasive breast cancer: a review. J Clin Pathol. 2004;57(7):675–81.
21.
BursteinHJ, CuriglianoG, ThürlimannB, WeberWP, PoortmansP, ReganMM, SennHJ, WinerEP, GnantM. Panelists of the St Gallen Consensus ConferenceCustomizing local and systemic therapies for women with early breast cancer: the St Gallen International Consensus Guidelines for treatment of early breast cancer 2021Ann Oncol. 2021;32(10):1216–35.
22.
AuFW, GhaiS, LuFI, MoshonovH, CrystalP. Histological Grade and Immunohistochemical Biomarkers of Breast Cancer: Correlation to Ultrasound Features. J Ultrasound Med. 2017;36(9):1883–94.
23.
HeylenN, BaurainR, RemacleC, TrouetA. Effect of MRC-5 fibroblast conditioned medium on breast cancer cell motility and invasion in vitroClin Exp Metastasis. 1998;16(2):193–203.
24.
AgahozoMC, WestenendPJ, van BockstalMR, HansumT, GiangJ, MatlungSE, van DeurzenCHM. Immune response and stromal changes in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast are subtype dependent. Mod Pathol. 2020;33(9):1773–82.
25.
OrimoA, GuptaPB, SgroiDC, Arenzana-SeisdedosF, DelaunayT, NaeemR, CareyVJ, RichardsonAL, WeinbergRA. Stromal fibroblasts present in invasive human breast carcinomas promote tumor growth and angiogenesis through elevated SDF-1/CXCL12 secretion. Cell. 2000;121(3):335–48.
26.
RakhaEA, Reis-FilhoJS, BaehnerF, DabbsDJ, DeckerT, EusebiV, FoxSB, IchiharaS, JacquemierJ, LakhaniSR, PalaciosJ, RichardsonAL, SchnittSJ, SchmittFC, TanPH, TseGM, BadveS, EllisIO. Breast cancer prognostic classification in the molecular era: the role of histological grade. Breast Cancer Res. 2010;12(4):207.
27.
McSherryEA, DonatelloS, HopkinsAM, McDonnellS. Molecular basis of invasion in breast cancer. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2007;64(24):3201–18.
28.
LengX, HuangG, MaF, YaoL. Regional Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasonography (CEUS) Characteristics of Breast Cancer and Correlation with Microvessel Density (MVD). Med Sci Monit. 2017;233428–36.
29.
ColpaertC, VermeulenP, van BeestP, GoovaertsG, WeylerJ, Van DamP, DirixL, Van MarckE. Intratumoral hypoxia resulting in the presence of a fibrotic focus is an independent predictor of early distant relapse in lymph node-negative breast cancer patients. Histopathology. 2001;39(4):416–25.
30.
IqbalN, IqbalN. Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) in Cancers: Overexpression and Therapeutic Implications. Mol Biol Int2014;2014:852748.
31.
TakadaM, ToiM. Neoadjuvant treatment for HER2-positive breast cancer. Chin Clin Oncol. 2020;9(3):32.
32.
ZhangZ, TangP. Genomic Pathology and Biomarkers in Breast Cancer. Crit Rev Oncog. 2017;22(5-6):411–26.
33.
YuanY, XuM, RenY, HeL, ChenJ, SunLClinical Value of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in Breast Cancer Diagnosis. Comput Math Methods Med. 2022;2022:2017026.
34.
O’GradyS, MorganMP. Microcalcifications in breast cancer: From pathophysiology to diagnosis and prognosis. Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer. 20181869(2):310–20.
35.
LiJ, YuanM, YangL, GuoL. Correlation of contrast-enhanced ultrasound features with prognostic factors in invasive ductal carcinomas of the breast. Jpn J Radiol. 2020;38(10):960–7.
36.
BosR, van DiestPJ, van der GroepP, ShvartsA, GreijerAE, van der WallE. Expression of hypoxia-inducible factor-1alpha and cell cycle proteins in invasive breast cancer are estrogen receptor related. Breast Cancer Res. 2004;6(4):R450–9.
37.
CuiX, SchiffR, ArpinoG, OsborneCK, LeeAV. Biology of progesterone receptor loss in breast cancer and its implications for endocrine therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(30):7721–35.
38.
PuttiTC, El-RehimDM, RakhaEA, PaishCE, LeeAH, PinderSE, EllisIO. Estrogen receptor-negative breast carcinomas: a review of morphology and immunophenotypical analysis. Mod Pathol. 2005;18(1):26–35.
