Original Research

Histological Grade and Immunohistochemical Biomarkers of Breast Cancer: Correlation to Ultrasound Features

Corresponding Author

Frederick Wing-Fai Au MBBS

[email protected]

Joint Department of Medical Imaging, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Address correspondence to Frederick Wing-Fai Au, MBBS, Joint Department of Medical Imaging, Toronto General Hospital, 585 University Ave E, Toronto, Ontario M5G 2N2, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author

Sandeep Ghai MD,

Sandeep Ghai MD

Joint Department of Medical Imaging, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Search for more papers by this author

Fang-I Lu MD,

Fang-I Lu MD

Department of Pathology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Search for more papers by this author

Hadas Moshonov PhD,

Hadas Moshonov PhD

Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Search for more papers by this author

Pavel Crystal MD,

Pavel Crystal MD

Joint Department of Medical Imaging, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Search for more papers by this author

Frederick Wing-Fai Au MBBS,

Corresponding Author

Frederick Wing-Fai Au MBBS

[email protected]

Joint Department of Medical Imaging, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Sandeep Ghai MD,

Sandeep Ghai MD

Joint Department of Medical Imaging, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Search for more papers by this author

Fang-I Lu MD,

Fang-I Lu MD

Department of Pathology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Search for more papers by this author

Hadas Moshonov PhD,

Hadas Moshonov PhD

Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Search for more papers by this author

Pavel Crystal MD,

Pavel Crystal MD

Joint Department of Medical Imaging, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Search for more papers by this author

First published: 27 May 2017

https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.14247

Citations: 20

Part of the material in the manuscript was presented as a scientific poster at the American Roentgen Ray Society annual meeting; April 2016; Los Angeles, California.

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of this study is to correlate various features of breast cancers on ultrasound to their histological grade and immunohistochemical biomarkers.

Methods

Seventy-three patients with 77 invasive breast cancers, diagnosed between August 2011 and December 2014, were included in this prospective analysis. Margin, posterior features, shape, and vascularity were determined from ultrasound and classified according to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System lexicon. Histological grade, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status (positive [+] or negative [−]) were determined from surgical pathology reports. The cancers were categorized into low grade (grades 1 or 2) and high grade (grade 3). Correlation of ultrasound features of the cancers to their histological grade and receptor status was performed.

Results

There were 47 low-grade and 29 high-grade cancers. There was a significant difference in margin and posterior features between the low and high grade, ER + and ER−, and PR + and PR− (all P < .05), but not between HER2 + and HER2− cancers (both P > .05). There was no significant difference in shape and vascularity among the different subtypes (all P > .05). Spiculated margin was significantly associated with low-grade, ER+, PR + status; angular margin with high grade; microlobulated margin with ER− status; shadowing with PR + status; and enhancement with high grade, ER− status (all P < .05, all odds ratios ≥ 3.94).

Conclusions

There was significant association of margin and posterior features of breast cancers with their histological grade and receptor status.

References

1 DeSantis C, Ma J, Bryan L, Jemal A. Breast cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin 2014; 64: 52–62.
10.3322/caac.21203
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
2 DeSantis CE, Fedewa SA, Goding Sauer A, Kramer JL, Smith RA, Jemal A. Breast cancer statistics, 2015: convergence of incidence rates between black and white women. CA Cancer J Clin 2016; 66: 31–42.
10.3322/caac.21320
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
3 Bloom HJ, Richardson WW. Histological grading and prognosis in breast cancer; a study of 1409 cases of which 359 have been followed for 15 years. Br J Cancer 1957; 11: 359–377.
10.1038/bjc.1957.43
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4 Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I, The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 1991; 19: 403–410.
10.1111/j.1365-2559.1991.tb00229.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
5 Carter CL, Allen C, Henson DE. Relation of tumor size, lymph node status and survival in 24,740 breast cancer cases. Cancer 1989; 63: 181–187.
10.1002/1097-0142(19890101)63:1<181::AID-CNCR2820630129>3.0.CO;2-H
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
6 Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB, et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumors. Nature 2000; 406: 747–752.
10.1038/35021093
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
7 Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS, et al. Strategies for subtypes—dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2011. Ann Oncol 2011; 22: 1736–1747.
10.1093/annonc/mdr304
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8 Blows FM, Driver KE, Schmidt MK, et al. Subtyping of breast cancer by immunohistochemistry to investigate a relationship between subtype and short and long term survival: a collaborative analysis of data for 10,159 cases from 12 studies. PLoS Med 2010; 7: e1000279.
10.1371/journal.pmed.1000279
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
9 Dawood S, Hu R, Homes MD, et al. Defining breast cancer prognosis based on molecular phenotypes: results from a large cohort study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011; 126: 185–192.
10.1007/s10549-010-1113-7
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
10 Cuzick J, Dowsett M, Pineda S, et al. Prognostic value of a combined estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, Ki-67, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 immunohistochemical score and comparison with the Genomic Health recurrence score in early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 4273–4278.
10.1200/JCO.2010.31.2835
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
11 Inwald EC, Koller M, Klinkhammer-Schalke M, et al. 4-IHC classification of breast cancer subtypes in a large cohort of a clinical cancer registry: use in clinical routine for therapeutic decisions and its effect on survival. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2015; 153: 647–658.
10.1007/s10549-015-3572-3
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12 Engstrøm MJ, Opdahl S, Hagen Al, et al. Molecular subtypes, histopathological grade and survival in a historic cohort of breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013; 140: 463–473.
10.1007/s10549-013-2647-2
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
13 Mendelson EB, Bohm-Velez M, Berg WA, et al. ACR BI-RADS ultrasound. In: ACR BI-RADS Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2013.
Google Scholar
14 Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, Dennis NA, Parker SH, Sisney GA. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology 1995; 196: 123–134.
10.1148/radiology.196.1.7784555
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
15 Hong AS, Rosen EL, Soo MS, Baker JA. BI-RADS for sonography: positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 184: 1260–1265.
10.2214/ajr.184.4.01841260
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
16 Zardavas D, Irrthum A, Swanton C, Piccart M. Clinical management of breast cancer heterogeneity. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2015; 12: 381–394.
10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.73
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
17 Ng CK, Pemberton HN, Reis-Filho JS. Breast cancer intratumor genetic heterogeneity: causes and implications. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2012; 12: 1021–1032.
10.1586/era.12.85
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
18 Lamb PM, Perry NM, Vinnicombe SJ, Wells CA. Correlation between ultrasound characteristics, mammographic findings and histological grade in patients with invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. Clin Radiol 2000; 55: 40–44.
10.1053/crad.1999.0333
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
19 Blaichman J, Marcus JC, Alsaadi T, El-Khoury M, Meterissian S, Mesurolle B. Sonographic appearance of invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast according to its histologic grade. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012; 199: W402–W408.
10.2214/AJR.11.7374
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
20 Aho M, Irshad A, Ackerman SJ, et al. Correlation of sonographic features of invasive ductal mammary carcinoma with age, tumor grade, and hormone-receptor status. J Clin Ultrasound 2013; 41: 10–17.
10.1002/jcu.21990
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
21 Irshad A, Leddy R, Pisano E, et al. Assessing the role of ultrasound in predicting the biological behavior of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013; 200: 284–290.
10.2214/AJR.12.8781
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
22 Celebi F, Pilancı KN, Ordu C, et al. The role of ultrasonographic findings to predict molecular subtype, histologic grade, and hormonal receptor status of breast cancer. Diagn Interv Radiol 2015; 21: 448–453.
10.5152/dir.2015.14515
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
23 Ko ES, Lee BH, Kim HA, Noh WC, Kim MS, Lee SA. Triple-negative breast cancer: correlation between imaging and pathological findings. Eur Radiol 2010; 20: 1111–1117.
10.1007/s00330-009-1656-3
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
24 Dogan BE, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Gilcrease M, Dryden MJ, Yang WT. Multimodality imaging of triple receptor-negative tumors with mammography, ultrasound, and MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194: 1160–1166.
10.2214/AJR.09.2355
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
25 Krizmanich-Conniff KM, Paramagul C, Patterson SK, et al. Triple receptor-negative breast cancer: imaging and clinical characteristics. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012; 199: 458–464.
10.2214/AJR.10.6096
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
26 Gokalp G, Topal U, Yildirim N, Tolunay S. Malignant spiculated breast masses: dynamic contrast enhanced MR (DCE-MR) imaging enhancement characteristics and histopathological correlation. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: 203–208.
10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.12.022
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
27 Walker RA. The complexities of breast cancer desmoplasia. Breast Cancer Res 2001; 3: 143–145.
10.1186/bcr287
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
28 Kossoff G. Causes of shadowing in breast sonography. Ultrasound Med Biol 1988; 14: 211–215.
10.1016/0301-5629(88)90063-4
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
29 Kobayashi T. Diagnostic ultrasound in breast cancer: analysis of retrotumorous echo patterns correlated with sonic attenuation by cancerous connective tissue. J Clin Ultrasound 1979; 7: 471–479.
10.1002/jcu.1870070611
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
30 Gozzi G, Cressa C, Bazzocchi M, Stanta G, Vidali C. Causes of attenuation of the sound waves in neoplasms of the breast. Histologic and echographic correlation study. Radiol Med 1986; 72: 195–198.
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
31 Shyyan R, Masood S, Badwe RA, et al. Breast cancer in limited-resource countries: diagnosis and pathology. Breast J 2006; 12: S27–S37.
10.1111/j.1075-122X.2006.00201.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
32 El Saghir NS, Adebamowo CA, Anderson BO, et al. Breast cancer management in low resource countries (LRCs): consensus statement from the Breast Health Global Initiative. Breast 2011; 20: S3–S11.
10.1016/j.breast.2011.02.006
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
33 American Cancer Society. Global cancer facts and figures. http://ww2.cancer.org/downloads/STT/Global_Cancer_Facts_and_Figures_2007_rev.pdf; 2007. Accessed July 2010.
Google Scholar
34 Baker JA, Kornguth PJ, Soo MS, Walsh R, Mengoni P. Sonography of solid breast lesions: observer variability of lesion description and assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999; 172: 1621–1625.
10.2214/ajr.172.6.10350302
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
35 Lee HJ, Kim EK, Kim MJ, et al. Observer variability of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) for breast ultrasound. Eur J Radiol 2008; 65: 293–298.
10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.04.008
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume36, Issue9

September 2017

Pages 1883-1894

Histological Grade and Immunohistochemical Biomarkers of Breast Cancer: Correlation to Ultrasound Features

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

References

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Histological Grade and Immunohistochemical Biomarkers of Breast Cancer: Correlation to Ultrasound Features

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

References

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information