Sonographic Features That Can Be Used to Differentiate Between Small Triple-negative Breast Cancer and Fibroadenoma

Overview

Journal Ultrasonography

Date 2017 Sep 6

PMID 28870060

Citations 6

Authors

Ga Young Yoon

Joo Hee Cha

Hak Hee Kim

Hee Jung Shin

Eun Young Chae

Woo Jung Choi

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: Our study investigated whether any sonographic findings could be useful for differentiating between small triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and fibroadenoma.

Methods: This retrospective study was approved by our Institutional Review Board, which waived the requirement for patient consent. From January 2009 to December 2010, the sonographic features of 181 pathologically proven TNBC tumors and 172 fibroadenomas measuring less than or equal to 2 cm in the longest dimension were reviewed and analyzed according to the fifth edition of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon. Mean tumor roundness was also measured using in-house software.

Results: The median longest lesion dimension was 16 mm (range, 13 to 18 mm) in TNBCs and 13 mm (range, 10 to 16 mm) in fibroadenomas. In comparison to fibroadenomas, small TNBC tumors presented with a higher incidence of irregular shapes (66.9%), noncircumscribed margins (91.7%), hypoechoic echotexture (59.1%), posterior acoustic enhancement (65.2%), and associated features (24.4%). Most TNBCs were classified as BI-RADS category 4 (65.2%) or 5 (28.2%). The mean tumor roundness of small TNBCs was greater than that of fibroadenomas (60%±12% vs. 53%±13%). Multivariate analysis showed that older patient age, irregular shape, nonparallel orientation, posterior acoustic enhancement, associated features, a BI-RADS final assessment category of 4 or 5, and greater tumor roundness were significant independent factors indicative of TNBCs.

Conclusion: TNBC tumors tend to demonstrate more suspicious sonographic features and greater tumor roundness than fibroadenomas. These features may have the potential to help differentiate between small TNBCs and fibroadenomas.

Citing Articles

The value of CT shape quantification in predicting pathological classification of lung adenocarcinoma.

Guo M, Cao Z, Huang Z, Hu S, Xiao Y, Ding Q BMC Cancer. 2024; 24(1):35.

PMID: 38178062 PMC: 10768264. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-023-11802-5.

Prevalence of breast fibroadenoma in healthy physical examination population in Guangdong province of China: a cross-sectional study.

Zhu L, Zeng X, Jiang S, Ruan S, Ma H, Li Y BMJ Open. 2022; 12(6):e057080.

PMID: 35760543 PMC: 9237909. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057080.

Value of Histogram of Gray-Scale Ultrasound Image in Differential Diagnosis of Small Triple Negative Breast Invasive Ductal Carcinoma and Fibroadenoma.

Xu M, Li F, Yu S, Zeng S, Weng G, Teng P Cancer Manag Res. 2022; 14:1515-1524.

PMID: 35478712 PMC: 9038159. DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S359986.

Ultrasound-based radiomics nomogram for differentiation of triple-negative breast cancer from fibroadenoma.

Du Y, Zha H, Wang H, Liu X, Pan J, Du L Br J Radiol. 2022; 95(1133):20210598.

PMID: 35138938 PMC: 10993963. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20210598.

Characterization of soft tissue tumours with ultrasound, shear wave elastography and MRI.

Winn N, Baldwin J, Cassar-Pullicino V, Cool P, Ockendon M, Tins B Skeletal Radiol. 2020; 49(6):869-881.

PMID: 31897519 DOI: 10.1007/s00256-019-03363-1.

References

Bae M, Moon W, Chang J, Koo H, Kim W, Cho N . Breast cancer detected with screening US: reasons for nondetection at mammography. Radiology. 2014; 270(2):369-77. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13130724. View

Li Z, Tian J, Wang X, Wang Y, Wang Z, Zhang L . Differences in Multi-Modal Ultrasound Imaging between Triple Negative and Non-Triple Negative Breast Cancer. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2016; 42(4):882-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2015.12.003. View

Hong A, Rosen E, Soo M, Baker J . BI-RADS for sonography: positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005; 184(4):1260-5. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.184.4.01841260. View

Yang W, Dryden M, Broglio K, Gilcrease M, Dawood S, Dempsey P . Mammographic features of triple receptor-negative primary breast cancers in young premenopausal women. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007; 111(3):405-10. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-007-9810-6. View

Bae M, Seo M, Kim K, Park I, Moon W . Quantitative MRI morphology of invasive breast cancer: correlation with immunohistochemical biomarkers and subtypes. Acta Radiol. 2014; 56(3):269-75. DOI: 10.1177/0284185114524197. View

Taskin F, Koseoglu K, Ozbas S, Erkus M, Karaman C . Sonographic features of histopathologically benign solid breast lesions that have been classified as BI-RADS 4 on sonography. J Clin Ultrasound. 2012; 40(5):261-5. DOI: 10.1002/jcu.21923. View

Gokhale S . Ultrasound characterization of breast masses. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2009; 19(3):242-7. PMC: 2766883. DOI: 10.4103/0971-3026.54878. View

Foulkes W, Smith I, Reis-Filho J . Triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010; 363(20):1938-48. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra1001389. View

Ko E, Lee B, Kim H, Noh W, Kim M, Lee S . Triple-negative breast cancer: correlation between imaging and pathological findings. Eur Radiol. 2009; 20(5):1111-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-009-1656-3. View

10.

Kriege M, Brekelmans C, Boetes C, Besnard P, Zonderland H, Obdeijn I . Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med. 2004; 351(5):427-37. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa031759. View

11.

Du H, Lin B, Huang D . Ultrasonographic findings of triple-negative breast cancer. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015; 8(6):10040-3. PMC: 4538191. View

12.

Kojima Y, Tsunoda H . Mammography and ultrasound features of triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2010; 18(3):146-51. DOI: 10.1007/s12282-010-0223-8. View

13.

Ryu E, Chang J, Seo M, Kim S, Lim J, Moon W . Tumour volume doubling time of molecular breast cancer subtypes assessed by serial breast ultrasound. Eur Radiol. 2014; 24(9):2227-35. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-014-3256-0. View

14.

Wang Y, Ikeda D, Narasimhan B, Longacre T, Bleicher R, Pal S . Estrogen receptor-negative invasive breast cancer: imaging features of tumors with and without human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 overexpression. Radiology. 2008; 246(2):367-75. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2462070169. View

15.

Dogan B, Turnbull L . Imaging of triple-negative breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2012; 23 Suppl 6:vi23-9. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mds191. View

16.

Moon W, Huang Y, Lo C, Huang C, Bae M, Kim W . Computer-aided diagnosis for distinguishing between triple-negative breast cancer and fibroadenomas based on ultrasound texture features. Med Phys. 2015; 42(6):3024-35. DOI: 10.1118/1.4921123. View

17.

Tseng H, Wu H, Chen S, Kuo S, Huang Y, Chen D . Speckle reduction imaging of breast ultrasound does not improve the diagnostic performance of morphology-based CAD System. J Clin Ultrasound. 2011; 40(1):1-6. DOI: 10.1002/jcu.20897. View

18.

de Ruijter T, Veeck J, de Hoon J, van Engeland M, Tjan-Heijnen V . Characteristics of triple-negative breast cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2010; 137(2):183-92. PMC: 3018596. DOI: 10.1007/s00432-010-0957-x. View

19.

Dogan B, Gonzalez-Angulo A, Gilcrease M, Dryden M, Yang W . Multimodality imaging of triple receptor-negative tumors with mammography, ultrasound, and MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010; 194(4):1160-6. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.09.2355. View

20.

Dent R, Trudeau M, Pritchard K, Hanna W, Kahn H, Sawka C . Triple-negative breast cancer: clinical features and patterns of recurrence. Clin Cancer Res. 2007; 13(15 Pt 1):4429-34. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-3045. View