BI-RADS 3–5 microcalcifications can preoperatively predict breast cancer HER2 and Luminal a molecular subtype

Purpose To investigate associations between breast cancer molecular subtype and the patterns of mammographically detected calcifications. Results Identified were 93 (19.1%) Luminal A, 242 (49.9%) Luminal B, 108 (22.2%) HER2 and 42 (8.7%) basal subtypes. In univariate analysis, the clinicopathological parameters and BI-RADS 3–5 microcalcifications, which consisted 9 selected features was significantly associated with breast cancer molecular subtype (all P < 0.05). Among subtypes, multivariate analysis showed that calcification >2 cm in range (OR: 1.878, 95% CI: 1.150 to 3.067) and calcification > 0.5 mm in diameter (OR:2.206, 95% CI: 1.235 to 3.323) was independently predictive of HER2 subtype. The model showed good discrimination for predicting HER2 subtype, with a C-index of 0.704. In addition, multivariate analysis showed that calcification morphology (amorphour or coarse heterogenous calcifications OR: 2.847, 95% CI: 1.526 to 5.312) was independently predictive of Luminal A subtype. The model showed good discrimination for predicting Luminal A subtype, with a C-index of 0.74. And we demonstrated that amorphour or coarse heterogenous calcifications were associated with a higher incidence of Luminal A subtype than pleomorphic or fine linear or branching calcifications. There was no significant difference between breast cancer subtypes (Luminal B vs. other; Basal vs. other) and the patterns of mammographically detected calcifications. Materials and Methods Mammographic images of 485 female patients were included. The correlation between mammographic imaging features and breast cancer subtype was analyzed using Chi-square test, univariate and binary logistic regression analysis. Conclusions This study shows that BI-RADS 3–5 microcalcifications can be conveniently used to facilitate the preoperative prediction of HER2 and Luminal A molecular subtype in patients with infiltrating ductal carcinoma.

[1]  Noriaki Ohuchi,et al.  Correlation between mammographic findings and corresponding histopathology: Potential predictors for biological characteristics of breast diseases , 2011, Cancer science.

[2]  C. Floyd,et al.  Differences between computer-aided diagnosis of breast masses and that of calcifications. , 2002, Radiology.

[3]  Markus Hahn,et al.  Early detection of breast cancer: benefits and risks of supplemental breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with mammographically dense breast tissue. A systematic review , 2009, BMC Cancer.

[4]  Nariya Cho,et al.  Molecular subtypes and imaging phenotypes of breast cancer , 2016, Ultrasonography.

[5]  S. Radenković,et al.  HER2-positive breast cancer patients: correlation between mammographic and pathological findings. , 2014, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[6]  John M S Bartlett,et al.  Guidelines for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing: biologic and methodologic considerations. , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[7]  S. Moss,et al.  Pathological and mammographic prognostic factors for screen detected cancers in a multi-centre randomised, controlled trial of mammographic screening in women from age 40 to 48 years. , 2011, Breast.

[8]  S. Moss,et al.  Radiological and pathological findings of interval cancers in a multi-centre, randomized, controlled trial of mammographic screening in women from age 40-41 years. , 2007, Clinical radiology.

[9]  Hui Ling,et al.  Genome-Wide miRNA Analysis Identifies miR-188-3p as a Novel Prognostic Marker and Molecular Factor Involved in Colorectal Carcinogenesis , 2016, Clinical Cancer Research.

[10]  Serkan Ilgün,et al.  The role of ultrasonographic findings to predict molecular subtype, histologic grade, and hormone receptor status of breast cancer. , 2015, Diagnostic and interventional radiology.

[11]  Stephen T. C. Wong,et al.  Correlating mammographic and pathologic findings in clinical decision support using natural language processing and data mining methods , 2017, Cancer.

[12]  M. Bronsard,et al.  [HER-2 oncogene amplification assessment in invasive breast cancer by dual-color in situ hybridization (dc-CISH): a comparative study with fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH)]. , 2011, Annales de pathologie.

[13]  Marcia Koomen,et al.  Correlation of HER-2/neu overexpression with mammography and age distribution in primary breast carcinomas. , 2006, Academic radiology.

[14]  Joseph O. Deasy,et al.  Breast cancer subtype intertumor heterogeneity: MRI‐based features predict results of a genomic assay , 2015, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[15]  A. Arance,et al.  Clinical implications of the intrinsic molecular subtypes of breast cancer. , 2015, Breast.

[16]  Monica Morrow,et al.  Presenting Features of Breast Cancer Differ by Molecular Subtype , 2009, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[17]  Maciej A Mazurowski,et al.  Radiogenomic analysis of breast cancer: luminal B molecular subtype is associated with enhancement dynamics at MR imaging. , 2014, Radiology.

[18]  M. Kattan,et al.  Postoperative Nomogram for Predicting Cancer-Specific Mortality in Medullary Thyroid Cancer , 2015, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[19]  Yajia Gu,et al.  The Role of Mammographic Calcification in the Neoadjuvant Therapy of Breast Cancer Imaging Evaluation , 2014, PloS one.

[20]  S. Bonin,et al.  Are Breast Cancer Molecular Classes Predictive of Survival in Patients with Long Follow-Up? , 2013, Disease markers.

[21]  C. Perou,et al.  Breast cancer subtypes and response to docetaxel in node-positive breast cancer: use of an immunohistochemical definition in the BCIRG 001 trial. , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[22]  Charles M. Perou,et al.  Ki67 Index, HER2 Status, and Prognosis of Patients With Luminal B Breast Cancer , 2009, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[23]  Z. Hall.  Cancer , 1906, The Hospital.

[24]  A. Jemal,et al.  Cancer statistics, 2016 , 2016, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[25]  A. Madabhushi,et al.  Computerized image analysis for identifying triple-negative breast cancers and differentiating them from other molecular subtypes of breast cancer on dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images: a feasibility study. , 2014, Radiology.

[26]  H. Ong,et al.  Validation of the MSKCC Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor Nomogram and Comparison with Other Prognostication Systems: Single-Institution Experience with 289 Patients , 2015, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[27]  P. Tan,et al.  Calcification in breast lesions: pathologists’ perspective , 2007, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[28]  N. Dubrawsky.  Cancer statistics , 1989, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[29]  Kristen S Purrington,et al.  Genes associated with histopathologic features of triple negative breast tumors predict molecular subtypes , 2016, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[30]  R. Myers,et al.  Expression of the MHC Class II Pathway in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Tumor Cells Is Associated with a Good Prognosis and Infiltrating Lymphocytes , 2016, Cancer Immunology Research.

[31]  Eun Hee Lee,et al.  Expression of alpha B crystallin and BCL2 in patients with infiltrating ductal carcinoma. , 2015, International journal of clinical and experimental pathology.

[32]  Harini Veeraraghavan,et al.  Breast cancer molecular subtype classifier that incorporates MRI features , 2016, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.