Fischer's Score Criteria Correlating with Histopathological Prognostic Factors in Invasive Breast Cancer

Overview

Journal Radiol Med

Specialty Radiology

Date 2009 Sep 24

PMID 19774441

Citations 5

Authors

V Girardi

G Carbognin

L Camera

M Tonegutti

F Bonetti

E Manfrin

R Pozzi Mucelli

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate whether the Fischer score criteria on contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance (CE-MR) imaging could correlate with histopathological prognostic factors in invasive breast cancer.

Materials And Methods: Seventy-two women with histologically proven invasive breast cancer underwent preoperative CE-MR imaging. Images were assessed for the following parameters, according to the scoring system described by Fischer in 1999: tumour shape, margins, internal enhancement, signal intensity increase, signal intensity course and overall Fischer score. Evaluated histopathological prognostic factors included histological type, associated extensive intraductal component, diameter, lymph node metastasis, tumour grade, and oestrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR), Ki67 proliferation, oncogene c-erbB-2 (HER2/neu) expression. Fisher's exact test was used to correlate the CE-MR imaging parameters and histopathological findings (with significance set a p < 0.05).

Results: Fischer's score was 0-4 in 14/72 (19%) cases, >4 in 58/72 (81%) and 3 in 5/72 (7%; false negative), with a sensitivity of 93%. A significant correlation (p=0.02) was found between stellate-dendritic shape and the presence of an associated extensive intraductal component (EIC), which was found in 78% of stellate tumours vs. 49% of round-oval tumours. A significant correlation (p=0.039) was found between Ki67 expression and signal intensity course (Ki67 overexpression was present in 81% of tumours with washout course vs. 21% with plateau course).

Conclusions: The CE-MR imaging findings that correlate with prognostic factors are shape and signal intensity curve. Fischer's multifactorial analysis was helpful in the interpretation of CE-MR images, showing a sensitivity of 93% for invasive breast cancer.

Citing Articles

Breast Cancer Subtypes and Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systemic Review.

Kazama T, Takahara T, Hashimoto J Life (Basel). 2022; 12(4).

PMID: 35454981 PMC: 9028183. DOI: 10.3390/life12040490.

Characterizing and eliminating errors in enhancement and subtraction artifacts in dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI: Chemical shift artifact of the third kind.

Derakhshan J, McDonald E, Siegelman E, Schnall M, Wehrli F Magn Reson Med. 2017; 79(4):2277-2289.

PMID: 28840613 PMC: 5811365. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.26879.

Cone-beam Breast Computed Tomography: CT Density Does Not Reflect Proliferation Potential and Receptor Expression of Breast Carcinoma.

Wienbeck S, Fischer U, Perske C, Wienke A, Meyer H, Lotz J Transl Oncol. 2017; 10(4):599-603.

PMID: 28666188 PMC: 5491450. DOI: 10.1016/j.tranon.2017.05.004.

Body mass index and serum proteomic profile in breast cancer and healthy women: a prospective study.

Garrisi V, Tufaro A, Trerotoli P, Bongarzone I, Quaranta M, Ventrella V PLoS One. 2012; 7(11):e49631.

PMID: 23226214 PMC: 3511468. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049631.

Utility of second-look ultrasound in the management of incidental enhancing lesions detected by breast MR imaging.

Carbognin G, Girardi V, Calciolari C, Brandalise A, Bonetti F, Russo A Radiol Med. 2010; 115(8):1234-45.

PMID: 20574702 DOI: 10.1007/s11547-010-0561-9.

References

Baum F, Fischer U, Vosshenrich R, Grabbe E . Classification of hypervascularized lesions in CE MR imaging of the breast. Eur Radiol. 2002; 12(5):1087-92. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-001-1213-1. View

Mussurakis S, Buckley D, Horsman A . Dynamic MR imaging of invasive breast cancer: correlation with tumour grade and other histological factors. Br J Radiol. 1997; 70(833):446-51. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.70.833.9227224. View

Lee C, Smith R, Levine J, Troiano R, Tocino I . Clinical usefulness of MR imaging of the breast in the evaluation of the problematic mammogram. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999; 173(5):1323-9. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.173.5.10541112. View

Szabo B, Aspelin P, Kristoffersen Wiberg M, Tot T, Bone B . Invasive breast cancer: correlation of dynamic MR features with prognostic factors. Eur Radiol. 2003; 13(11):2425-35. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-003-2000-y. View

Schnitt S . Traditional and newer pathologic factors. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2002; (30):22-6. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jncimonographs.a003456. View

Del Maschio A, Bazzocchi M, Giuseppetti G, Simonetti G, Romagnoli R, Panizza P . Breast MRI: report on a multicentric national trial by the Study Section of Magnetic Resonance and Breast Imaging. Radiol Med. 2003; 104(4):262-72. View

Kim S, Morris E, Liberman L, Ballon D, La Trenta L, Hadar O . Observer variability and applicability of BI-RADS terminology for breast MR imaging: invasive carcinomas as focal masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001; 177(3):551-7. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.177.3.1770551. View

Orlacchio A, Bolacchi F, Rotili A, Cossu E, Tanga I, Cozzolino V . MR breast imaging: a comparative analysis of conventional and parallel imaging acquisition. Radiol Med. 2008; 113(4):465-76. DOI: 10.1007/s11547-008-0278-1. View

Veronesi U, Boyle P, Goldhirsch A, Orecchia R, Viale G . Breast cancer. Lancet. 2005; 365(9472):1727-41. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66546-4. View

10.

Burge C, Chang H, Apple S . Do the histologic features and results of breast cancer biomarker studies differ between core biopsy and surgical excision specimens?. Breast. 2005; 15(2):167-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2005.06.004. View

11.

Slamon D, Clark G, Wong S, Levin W, Ullrich A, McGuire W . Human breast cancer: correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the HER-2/neu oncogene. Science. 1987; 235(4785):177-82. DOI: 10.1126/science.3798106. View

12.

Kuhl C . The current status of breast MR imaging. Part I. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice. Radiology. 2007; 244(2):356-78. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2442051620. View

13.

Orel S, SCHNALL M . MR imaging of the breast for the detection, diagnosis, and staging of breast cancer. Radiology. 2001; 220(1):13-30. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.220.1.r01jl3113. View

14.

Montemurro F, Martincich L, Sarotto I, Bertotto I, Ponzone R, Cellini L . Relationship between DCE-MRI morphological and functional features and histopathological characteristics of breast cancer. Eur Radiol. 2006; 17(6):1490-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-006-0505-x. View

15.

Rankin S . MRI of the breast. Br J Radiol. 2000; 73(872):806-18. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.73.872.11026854. View

16.

Tuncbilek N, Karakas H, Okten O . Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging in determining histopathological prognostic factors of invasive breast cancers. Eur J Radiol. 2005; 53(2):199-205. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2003.11.004. View

17.

Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E . Breast carcinoma: effect of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging on the therapeutic approach. Radiology. 1999; 213(3):881-8. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.213.3.r99dc01881. View

18.

Sardanelli F, Giuseppetti G, Canavese G, Cataliotti L, Corcione S, Cossu E . Indications for breast magnetic resonance imaging. Consensus document "Attualità in senologia", Florence 2007. Radiol Med. 2008; 113(8):1085-95. DOI: 10.1007/s11547-008-0340-z. View

19.

Li C, Uribe D, Daling J . Clinical characteristics of different histologic types of breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2005; 93(9):1046-52. PMC: 2361680. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602787. View

20.

Buadu L, Murakami J, Murayama S, Hashiguchi N, Sakai S, Toyoshima S . Patterns of peripheral enhancement in breast masses: correlation of findings on contrast medium enhanced MRI with histologic features and tumor angiogenesis. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1997; 21(3):421-30. DOI: 10.1097/00004728-199705000-00016. View