Tumour volume doubling time of molecular breast cancer subtypes assessed by serial breast ultrasound
- 962 Downloads
The aim of our study was to evaluate the tumour volume doubling time (TVDT) of molecular breast cancer subtypes by serial ultrasound (US).
Sixty-six patients (mean age, 50 years; range, 29–78 years) with invasive breast cancer underwent initial and follow-up breast US examinations (at least three months apart) with no intervention. TVDT was determined using the tumours’ greatest dimensions in two orthogonal planes. The results were compared with clinical, imaging, and tumour variables and molecular subtypes (oestrogen receptor [ER]-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 [HER2]-positive, and triple negative) using a multiple linear regression analysis.
TVDT exhibited a wide range (46–825 days; median, 141 days) with an overall mean of 193 ± 141 days and mean values of 241 ± 166 days for ER-positive tumours (n = 37), 162 ± 60 days for HER2-positive tumours (n = 12), and 103 ± 43 days for triple-negative tumours (n = 17) (P < 0.0001). In a multivariate regression analysis, compared to other features, only the different molecular breast cancer subtypes showed significant difference in TVDT (P < 0.0001).
TVDT differed significantly among the three molecular breast cancer subtypes, with the triple-negative tumours showing the fastest growth.
• Knowledge of tumour volume doubling time provides clues for improving screening.
• TVDT assessed by serial US differed significantly between breast cancer subtypes.
• Triple-negative tumours had 2.4-fold shorter TVDT compared to ER-positive tumours.
• Tumours classified as BI-RADS 3 had shorter TVDT than BI-RADS 4.
KeywordsBreast cancer Molecular subtypes Ultrasound Tumour volume doubling time Triple-negative breast cancer
Abbreviations and acronyms
Tumour volume doubling time
human epidermal growth factor receptor 2
Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Woo Kyung Moon. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. This study has received funding by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MEST) (No. 2012R1A2A1A01010846). No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board. Methodology: retrospective, observational, performed at one institution.
- 16.Boisserie-Lacroix M, Macgrogan G, Debled M et al (2013) Triple-negative breast cancers: associations between imaging and pathological findings for triple-negative tumors compared with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative breast cancers. Oncologist 18:802–811PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Mendelson EB, Baum JK, Berg WA, Merritt CRB, Rubin E (2003) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, BI-RADS: Ultrasound, 1st edn. American College of Radiology, RestonGoogle Scholar
- 19.Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Wolff AC, Mangu PB, Temin S (2010) American society of clinical oncology/college of american pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J Oncol Pract 6:195–197PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.de Melo Gagliato D, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Lei X et al (2014) Clinical impact of delaying initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol(Jan 27)Google Scholar
- 30.Stavros AT (2003) Breast ultrasound. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA, pp 490–491Google Scholar