Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Triple-negative breast cancer: correlation between imaging and pathological findings

  • Breast
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

This study was designed to investigate the mammography and ultrasound findings of triple-negative breast cancer and to compare the results with characteristics of ER-positive/PR-negative/HER2-negative breast cancer and ER-negative/PR-negative/HER2-positive breast cancer.

Methods

From January 2007 to October 2008, mammography and ultrasound findings of 245 patients with pathologically confirmed triple-negative (n = 87), ER-positive/PR-negative/HER2-negative (n = 93) or ER-negative/PR-negative/HER2-positive breast cancers (n = 65) were retrospectively reviewed. We also reviewed pathological reports for information on the histological type, histological grade and the status of the biological markers.

Results

Triple-negative breast cancers showed a high histological grade. On mammography, triple-negative breast cancers usually presented with a mass (43/87, 49%) or with focal asymmetry (19/87, 22%), and were less associated with calcifications. On ultrasound, the cancers were less frequently seen as non-mass lesions (12/87, 14%), more likely to have circumscribed margins (43/75, 57%), were markedly hypoechoic (36/75, 57%) and less likely to show posterior shadowing (4/75, 5%). Among the three types of breast cancers, ER-negative/PR-negative/HER2-positive breast cancers most commonly had associated calcifications (52/65, 79%) on mammography and were depicted as non-mass lesions (21/65, 32%) on ultrasound.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that the imaging findings might be useful in diagnosing triple-negative breast cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1a, b
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bauer KR, Brown M, Cress RD, Parise CA, Caggiano V (2007) Descriptive analysis of estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, progesterone receptor (PR)-negative, and HER2-negative invasive breast cancer, the so-called triple-negative phenotype: a population-based study from the California cancer Registry. Cancer 109:1721–1728

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rakha EA, Reis-Filho JS, Ellis IO (2008) Basal-like breast cancer: a critical review. J Clin Oncol 26:2568–2581

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB et al (2000) Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 406:747–752

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Reis-Filho JS, Tutt AN (2008) Triple negative tumors: a critical review. Histopathology 52:108–118

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cheang MC, Voduc D, Bajdik C et al (2008) Basal-like breast cancer defined by five biomarkers has superior prognostic value than triple-negative phenotype. Clin Cancer Res 14:1368–1376

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Haffty BG, Yang Q, Reiss M et al (2006) Locoregional relapse and distant metastasis in conservatively managed triple negative early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 24:5652–5657

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dent R, Trudeau M, Pritchard KI et al (2007) Triple-negative cancer: clinical features and patterns of recurrence. Clin Cancer Res 13:4429–4434

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. American College of Radiology (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS™), 4th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston

    Google Scholar 

  9. Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Green AR, Lee AH, Robertson JF, Ellis IO (2007) Prognostic markers in triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer 109:25–32

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Livasy CA, Karaca G, Nanda R et al (2006) Phenotypic evaluation of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Mod Pathol 19:264–271

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Carey LA, Dees EC, Sawyer L et al (2007) The triple negative paradox: primary tumor chemosensitivity of breast cancer subtypes. Clin Cancer Res 13:2329–2334

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Basu S, Chen W, Tchou J et al (2008) Comparison of triple-negative and estrogen receptor-positive/progesterone receptor-positive/HER2-negative breast carcinoma using quantitative fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose/positron emission tomography imaging parameters: a potentially useful method for disease characterization. Cancer 112:995–1000

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Uematsu T, Kasami M, Yuen S (2009) Triple-negative breast cancer: correlation between MR imaging and pathologic findings. Radiology 250:638–647

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Schrading S, Kuhl CK (2008) Mammographic, US, and MR imaging phenotypes of familial breast cancer. Radiology 246:58–70

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Yang WT, Tse GM (2004) Sonographic, mammographic, and histopathologic correlation of symptomatic ductal carcinoma in situ. AJR Am J Roentgenol 182:101–110

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Shin HJ, Kim HH, Kim SM, Kwon GY, Gong G, Cho OK (2008) Screening-detected and symptomatic ductal carcinoma in situ: differences in the sonographic and pathologic features. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:516–525

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kim JH, Ko ES, Kim DY, Han H, Sohn JH, Choe DH (2009) Noncalcified ductal carcinoma in situ: imaging and histologic findings in 36 tumors. J Ultrasound Med 28:903–910

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Yang WT, Dryden M, Broglio K et al (2008) Mammographic features of triple receptor-negative primary breast cancers in young premenopausal women. Breast Cancer Res Treat 111:405–410

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wang Y, Ikeda DM, Narasimhan B et al (2008) Estrogen receptor-negative invasive breast cancer: imaging features of tumors with and without human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 overexpression. Radiology 246:367–375

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Korea Cancer Centre Hospital, 215-4 Gongneung-Dong, Nowon-Gu, Seoul, 139-706, Korea

    Eun Sook Ko & Byung Hee Lee

  2. Department of Surgery, Korea Cancer Centre Hospital, Seoul, Korea

    Hyun-A Kim & Woo-Chul Noh

  3. Department of Pathology, Korea Cancer Centre Hospital, Seoul, Korea

    Min Suk Kim

  4. Department of Preventive Medicine, Kangwon National University, Hyuja2-dong Chucheon-si, Kangwon-do, 110-799, Korea

    Sang-Ah Lee

Authors
  1. Eun Sook Ko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Byung Hee Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hyun-A Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Woo-Chul Noh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Min Suk Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sang-Ah Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eun Sook Ko.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ko, E.S., Lee, B.H., Kim, HA. et al. Triple-negative breast cancer: correlation between imaging and pathological findings. Eur Radiol 20, 1111–1117 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1656-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1656-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation