Objective: To study the imaging characteristics and clinical significance of molecular subtypes of papillary carcinoma of the breast under ultrasonography(US), mammography(MG) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Methods: Clinical and imaging data of 47 cases (49 lesions) of papillary carcinoma were retrospectively analyzed. According to the 2022 CBCS breast cancer molecular typing criteria, HER-2 positive and triple-negative types were not collected. 47 cases were divided into three subgroups: Luminal A group, Luminal B1 group and Luminal B2 group. The clinical features (n=47), US (n=47), MG (n=45) and MRI (n=14) features of each subtype were compared. The sensitivity and misdiagnosis rate of three kinds of BI-RADS were analyzed. Results: In terms of clinical features, papillary carcinoma of breast is a luminal phenotype of breast cancer. There were more masses in each subtype than those in nipple discharge. Regarding to imaging features, US showed that Luminal B2 and Luminal A lesions had unclear boundaries far more than Luminal B1 lesions (P= 0.015, P=0.027). MG showed that the morphology of each subtype was regular and the boundary was not clear. MRI showed that Luminal B2 lesions had unclear edges for 100 %, while Luminal B1 lesions had clear edges for 100 %, and ADC value of Luminal B1 was significantly lower than that of Luminal A (P=0.030). Imaging sensitivity of Luminal A, Luminal B1 and Luminal B2 were 52.8 %, 16.7 % and 100 % by US, 57.1 %, 83.3 % and 75.0 % by MG, 80.0 %, 100 % and 100 % by MRI respectively. The misdiagnosis rates of US, MG and MRI were 46.8 %, 37.8 % and 14.3 % respectively, and the misdiagnosis rate of US was much higher than that of MRI (P=0.029). Conclusion: Papillary carcinoma of breast is a type of breast cancer with positive expression ER and PR. Luminal B2 type is sensitive to US, but Luminal A and Luminal B1 types are more sensitive to MRI and MG. The molecular subtypes have different pathological compositions and imaging characteristics, which could provide reference for imaging diagnosis and clinical treatment.
ZHOU Chengli
,
GUO Jimin
,
LIU Yang
,
TANG Hongping
,
HUANG Rong
. Imaging characteristics and clinical significance of molecular subtypes of papillary carcinoma of breast[J]. Journal of Baotou Medical College, 2023
, 39(5)
: 43
-50
.
DOI: 10.16833/j.cnki.jbmc.2023.05.009
[1] Tan PH, Ellis I, Allison K, et al. The 2019 World Health Organization classification of tumours of the breast[J].Histopathology, 2020, 77(2): 181-185.
[2] Vineis P, Wild CP. The science of precision prevention of cancer[J].Lancet Oncol, 2017, 18: 997-998.
[3] Ahn S, Woo JW, Lee K, et al. HER2 status in breast cancer: changes in guidelines and complicating factors for interpretation[J].Pathol Transl Med, 2020, 54(1): 34-44.
[4] 中国抗癌协会乳腺癌专业委员会. 中国抗癌协会乳腺癌诊治指南与规范(2021年版)[J].中国癌症杂志, 2021, 31(10): 954-1040.
[5] Patel A, Hoda RS, Hoda SA. Papillary Breast Tumors: continuing controversies and commentary on WHO's 2019 criteria and classification[J].Int J Surg Pathol, 2022, 30(2): 124-137.
[6] Abubakar M, Figueroa J, Ali HR, et al. Combined quantitative measures of ER, PR, HER2, and KI67 provide more prognostic information than categorical combinations in luminal breast cancer[J].Mod Pathol, 2019, 32(9): 1244-1256.
[7] 孙正魁, 江泽飞. 2022版《中国临床肿瘤学会乳腺癌诊疗指南》更新解读[J].中国肿瘤外科杂志, 2022, 14(3): 212-218.
[8] Tsarouchi MI, Vlachopoulos GF, Karahaliou AN, et al. Multi-parametric MRI lesion heterogeneity biomarkers for breast cancer diagnosis[J].Physica Medica, 2020, 80(2): 101-110.
[9] Crespo J, Sun HX, Wu JM, et al. Rate of reclassification of HER2-equivocal breast cancer cases to HER2-negative per the 2018 ASCO/CAP guidelines and response of HER2-equivocal cases to anti-HER2 therapy[J].PLoS One, 2020, 15(11): e0241775.
[10] Lyu SY, Zhang Y, Zhang MW, et al. Diagnostic value of artificial intelligence automatic detection systems for breast BI-RADS 4 nodules[J].World Journal of Clinical Cases, 2022, 10(2): 518-527.
[11] 孙运坡, 应学翔, 何萍青. Luminal B1型乳腺癌的治疗及其靶点的研究进展[J].中国癌症杂志, 2015, 25(7): 555-560.
[12] Abubakar M, Figueroa J, Ali HR, et al. Combined quantitative measures of ER, PR, HER2, and KI67 provide more prognostic information than categorical combinations in Luminal B1reast cancer[J].Mod Pathol, 2019, 32(9): 1244-1256.
[13] Liu HB, Zhan HW, Sun D, et al. Comparison of BSGI, MRI, mammography, and ultrasound for the diagnosis of breast lesions and their correlations with specific molecular subtypes in Chinese women[J].BMC Med Imaging, 2020, 20(1): 98.
