Skip to main content

Radiographic markers of breast cancer brain metastases: relation to clinical characteristics and postoperative outcome

This article has been updated

Abstract

Objective

Occurrence of brain metastases BM is associated with poor prognosis in patients with breast cancer (BC). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the standard of care in the diagnosis of BM and determines further treatment strategy. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the association between the radiographic markers of BCBM on MRI with other patients’ characteristics and overall survival (OS).

Methods

We included 88 female patients who underwent BCBM surgery in our institution from 2008 to 2019. Data on demographic, clinical, and histopathological characteristics of the patients and postoperative survival were collected from the electronic health records. Radiographic features of BM were assessed upon the preoperative MRI. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed.

Results

The median OS was 17 months. Of all evaluated radiographic markers of BCBM, only the presence of necrosis was independently associated with OS (14.5 vs 22.5 months, p = 0.027). In turn, intra-tumoral necrosis was more often in individuals with shorter time interval between BC and BM diagnosis (< 3 years, p = 0.035) and preoperative leukocytosis (p = 0.022). Moreover, dural affection of BM was more common in individuals with positive human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status (p = 0.015) and supratentorial BM location (p = 0.024).

Conclusion

Intra-tumoral necrosis demonstrated significant association with OS after BM surgery in patients with BC. The radiographic pattern of BM on the preoperative MRI depends on certain tumor and clinical characteristics of patients.

Introduction

The breast cancer [8] is one of the most frequent primary cancer entities in women with high impact of interest and prognostic value [6, 9, 53, 68]. Therapy concepts of BC impacting the patients’ survival include the surgical and (neo-) adjuvant treatment, the conventional chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, and radiation, as well as targeted therapy [18, 25, 34, 43, 46, 55, 56, 69, 72].

Depending on different risk factors and applied treatment, 15–50% of BC patients develop brain metastases [5, 10, 23, 35, 38]. The receptor status (RS) plays an important role for therapy concepts and the prognosis of breast cancer brain metastases (BCBM) patients [40, 49, 51, 53, 56]. Individuals with triple negative BC and positive status of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) are prone to BM [35, 38, 51]. The overall survival (OS) after BM surgery depends on multiple factors like Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) scale score, number of BM, presence of extracranial metastases, patients’ age, timing between BC and BM, histopathological parameters, and (neo-) adjuvant treatments [3, 11, 20, 31, 33, 35, 60, 61]. In case of BCBM, the median OS varies between 7.2 and 37.7 months. [29, 33, 60]

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a sensitive diagnostic tool and increases the detection rate of BM [10, 26, 38, 57]. Moreover, MRI is commonly used to plan treatment and to control the cancer disease [2, 22, 36, 39, 50, 52, 65]. Recent studies showed that radiographic markers might have additional clinical value for the prognostication of postoperative survival in patients with lung and breast cancer [1, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 24, 45]. As to BCBM, the contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI features were identified as prognostic factors for therapeutic response after Gamma Knife radiosurgery [73]. In this context, the patient and tumor characteristics associated with the radiographic pattern of BM on MRI are also of clinical relevance. In particular, leptomeningeal infiltration of BM was more common in individuals with HER2-positive and triple-negative BC. [28, 30, 41]

To address the clinical value of radiographic markers of BCBM, we analyzed the association between various radiographic characteristics of BM on the preoperative MRI with demographic, clinical, and immunohistochemical features of BCBM patients selected for surgery. A special attention was drawn on the potential prognostic value of radiographic markers of BCBM for OS.

Material and methods

This study was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the local ethics committee of the University Hospital Essen (local registration number: 17–7855-BO).

Patient population

All female patients (age ≥ 18 years) who underwent BM surgery in our institution from January 2008 to December 2019 were included. The cases with missing preoperative MRI were excluded (n = 9). Treatment strategy and allocation to BCBM surgery was discussed in the institutional interdisciplinary tumor conference. Common criteria for BM surgery were the size and the mass effect from the lesion(s), presence of considerable perifocal edema and/or neurological symptoms, non-eloquent location, and the KPS score.

Data management

For the evaluation of the radiographic parameters of BCBM, the T1-, T2-, and contrast-enhanced-weighted images of the preoperative MRI scans were reviewed by the first author (A.M., blinded at this time to all clinical, histological, and survival data) for the presence of following radiographic characteristics of BM: number (single vs multiple), size (maximal diameter), and location (supratentorial vs infratentorial) of BM; intra-tumoral hemorrhage; contrast enhancement (CE) configuration; cystic components; necrosis; edema; midline shift; dural affection; and the relation to the ventricles.

Then, certain clinical and histological features of BCBM patients were recorded from the electronic health records: age (at BC and BM diagnosis), the type of BC surgery (mastectomy vs breast-preserving surgery (BPS)), trastuzumab therapy of BC, the time interval between the diagnosis of BC and BM, preoperative KPS scale, extracranial metastases, RS of BM and BC (hormone receptors: estrogen (ER), progesterone (PR), and HER2), and the receptor conversion (RC) in BM, as well as OS upon the available follow-up data. Moreover, two laboratory parameters at admission were also included for further correlations as commonly evaluated laboratory markers for disease progression and survival in BC patients: white blood cells [16, 27, 44, 47] and lactate dehydrogenase [37, 49, 67]

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS (version 27, SPSS Inc., IBM, Chicago, IL, USA) statistical software. The variables were reported in median values and interquartile ranges (IQR) between 25 and 75%, or as number of cases (with percentage), as appropriate. The significance level for the p value was set at ≤ 0.05. Continuous data were dichotomized according to the established criteria or using the associations in the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. In particular, WBC > 10 × 109/L was referred as leukocytosis and LDH as pathologically increased. The patients’ age was dichotomized at 65 years. In line with the previous studies [59], the size of peri-tumoral edema in the preoperative MRI scans was dichotomized at 10 mm.

First, the associations between preoperative MRI characteristics and patients’ demographic, clinical, immunohistochemical, and laboratory parameters were evaluated in univariate analysis using the chi-square (χ2 test) or Fisher exact tests. Significant associations from the univariable analysis were transferred to multivariable binary logistic regression analysis to control for confounders.

The associations between the radiographic markers and OS were evaluated in the univariable and multivariable Cox regression analysis in the same manner. To visualize the survival differences for major study results, the Kaplan–Meier survival plots and log-rank test were performed.

Results

Patient population

The final cohort consisted of 88 female patients. The median OS after BM surgery was 17.0 (7.0–34.8) months. The initial treatment of BC included BPS and trastuzumab in 44 (50%) and 26 (29.5%) cases, respectively. Adjuvant radiotherapy was the standard therapy after BCBM resection. In some cases, system therapy was also adapted. In our cohort, 77 (87.5%) received postoperative radiotherapy. Positive HER2 RS in the BM was identified in 36 cases (40.9%). Table 1 summarizes the major baseline demographic, clinical, and histological characteristics of the patients in the final cohort. On the preoperative MRI scans, 42 patients (47.7%) showed singular and supratentorial BM. The detailed information on the radiographic features of BCBM is presented in the Fig. 1.

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of BCBM patients
Fig. 1
figure 1

Radiological information’s in preoperative MRI. a Preoperative radiological parameters of operated BCBM patients. The following distribution of radiological characteristics are available: ventricular contact (19/88, 21.6%), ventricular infiltration (9/88, 10.2%), intraventricular lesion (2/88, 2.3%), necrosis (50/88, 56.8%), midline shift (16/88, 18.2%), edema > 10 mm (71/88, 80.7%), cystic components (23/88, 26.1%), circular CE (19/88, 21.6%), dural affection (47/88, 53.4%), BM diameter > 30 mm (44/88, 50.0%), and hemorrhage (3/88, 3.4%). b Preoperative MRI scans: b1 and b2 demonstrate central necrosis (hash symbol), perifocal edema is seen in b3 (black arrowhead) and b4 shows the circular CE exemplary. Abbreviation: CE, contrast enhancement; BM, brain metastases

Association between MRI markers and other patients’ characteristics

Univariable analysis

Intra-tumoral hemorrhage was more frequent in individuals with poor KPS scale (< 80%) at admission (p = 0.040).

Moreover, younger age at BC diagnosis (p = 0.033), BC therapy with trastuzumab (p = 0.019), infratentorial BM (p = 0.027), and positive HER2 RS in BM (p = 0.017) were associated with dural affection in the preoperative MRI.

Circular CE was identified more commonly in older patients at BC diagnosis (p = 0.001), in patients without trastuzumab therapy (p = 0.048), and with negative HER2 RS in BC (p = 0.050). Then, negative HER2 (p = 0.017) and ER (p = 0.001) RS in BM was also associated with circular CE in BCBM.

Cystic components in BM were detected more often in BM with negative ER RS (p = 0.001).

BM with necrosis in MRI showed associations with poorer initial clinical condition (p = 0.053), trastuzumab therapy for BC (p = 0.046), shorter time interval between BC and BM (p = 0.009), negative ER RS in BM (p = 0.049), and higher rate of leukocytosis at admission (p = 0.007).

BCBM patients without extracranial metastases (p = 0.027), shorter time interval between BC and BM manifestation (p = 0.024), and negative ER RS in BM (p = 0.030) as well as identic HR status in BC and BM (p = 0.047) showed more often BM with perifocal edema > 10 mm.

Finally, none of the patients’ characteristics showed significant associations with the relation of BM to the ventricles (see supplementary table 1 and 2).

Multivariable analysis

For dural affection, the following associations remained significant: supratentorial location of (aOR 3.10, 95% CI 1.16–8.27, p = 0.024) and positive HER2 RS in BM (aOR 3.30, 95% CI 1.26–8.62, p = 0.015). Age ≥ 65 years at BC diagnosis (aOR 5.66, 95% CI 1.18–27.14, p = 0.030) and negative ER RS in BM (aOR 21.84, 95% CI 2.37–201.49, p = 0.007) were significantly associated with circular CE. Moreover, two baseline parameters remained significant in the multivariable analysis for the predictors of necrosis in preoperative MRI: time interval between BC and BM (< 3 years, aOR 3.10, 95% CI 1.08–8.85, p = 0.035) and preoperative leukocytosis (aOR 3.44, 95% CI 1.19–9.94, p = 0.022). Finally, negative ER RS in BM (aOR 3.78, 95% CI 0.99–14.43, p = 0.05) was the only parameter independently associated with peri-tumoral edema in the multivariable analysis (see Table 2).

Table 2 Multivariate analysis of radiological features with clinical, immunohistochemically, and laboratory parameters

Association between MRI markers and OS

Univariable analysis: Patients with BM necrosis showed poorer outcome (median OS 14.50 vs 22.50 months, p = 0.051). Other radiographic parameters showed no significant associations with OS (Fig. 2). As to the remaining patient and tumor characteristics, only the positive HER2 RS in BM (median OS 23.5 vs 13.5 months, p = 0.017) and favorable preoperative KPS scale (≥ 80%, median OS 22.00 vs 7.00 months, p = 0.001) showed significant associations with OS (see supplementary table 3).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Prediction for OS in patients with operated BCBM: Kaplan Meier curves demonstrate the radiological parameters and their influence on OS. Only necrosis presents as independent prognostic factor for OS for operated BCBM patients (necrosis status in preoperative MRI, log-rank test: p = 0.045). a BM diameter (log-rank test: p = 0.285), b cystic components (log-rank test: p = 0.281), c dural affection (log-rank test: p = 0.485), d edema (log-rank test: p = 0.591), e hemorrhage (log-rank test: p = 0.792), f necrosis (log-rank test: p = 0.045), g ventricular contact (log-rank test: p = 0.303), and h circular CE (log-rank test: p = 0.842). Abbreviations: BM, brain metastasis; RS, receptor status; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; KPS, Karnofsky Performance status; Preop., preoperative

In the final multivariable Cox regression analysis, MRI necrosis (aHR 1.78, 95% CI 1.07–2.96, p = 0.027), negative HER2 RS in BM (aHR 1.88, 95% CI 1.10–3.21, p = 0.020), and poor preoperative KPS scale scores (aHR 3.33, 95% CI 1.57–7.06, p = 0.002) were confirmed as independent predictors for poor OS after BCBM surgery (See Table 3). Figure 3 visualizes the association between the number of present independent predictors and patients’ survival at 1, 2, and 3 years.

Table 3 Multivariate analysis for independent predictors of OS after BCBM surgery
Fig. 3
figure 3

Significant survival predictors in operated BCBM patients. BM HER2 negative RS, preoperative KPS < 80%, and necrosis in preoperative MRI are predictors for poor outcome. Prognostic relevant predictors demonstrate (1 year, 2 years, 3 years) survival rates [in %] in different subgroups (0, 1, 2, 3 risk factors). Abbreviations: BM, brain metastases; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; KPS, Karnofsky Performance status; neg, negative; pos, positive

Discussion

Currently, MRI is the standard of care in the diagnosis and the evaluation of treatment response in patients with BM. Increasing epidemiologic relevance of BC in the developed countries and considerable survival differences necessitate the identification of simple and reliable prognostic markers for BC patients which might help to predict the disease course at its early stage. In this retrospective study, we evaluated the prognostic value of easily assessable radiological markers of BCBM and found that the necrosis in the preoperative MRI scan is independently associated with postoperative survival in BCBM patients.

It is generally accepted that patients’ age, BC subtype, preoperative KPS scale scores, and the presence of extracranial metastases influence the treatment decisions and survival in individuals with BCBM [3, 11, 31,32,33, 35, 42, 51, 60]. The location and the number of BM are also relevant parameters for treatment decision and prognosis. So, infratentorial BM were associated with higher morbidity and complications rates in surgical series. [14, 63, 70] Different risk scores based on the patients’ age, KPS scale values, and BC subtype, as well as the patterns of intracranial and extracranial metastases were also confirmed as reliable prognostic markers for BCBM patients [17, 60, 62, 63, 66].

CE MRI is the gold standard in the diagnostics of BM patients and is crucial for the selection of proper treatment strategy. Furthermore, different (MRI-based) imaging characteristics of BM were reported as prognostic markers for survival and treatment response. The radiographic parameters which were previously addressed as clinically relevant markers for cancer patients include the tumor volume; presence of necrotic, perifocal, and cystic components; peri-focal edema; and dural affection, as well as the pattern of CE [4, 8, 15, 54, 58, 59, 64, 71, 73].

Several studies demonstrated the impact of CE-weighted MRIs for the prediction of local tumor control following Gamma Knife radiosurgery and underlined the correlations between EGFR mutation status and clinical aspects with radiological features like CE and mass effect of BM in non-small cell lung carcinoma [13, 15, 19, 21]. However, the data on the clinical value of radiographic BCBM characteristics for the estimation of postoperative survival was still missing.

In the present study, we have identified heterogeneous radiological characteristics of BM which can be easily assessed upon the preoperative MRI imaging without the application of cost- and time-consuming software solutions. We analyzed the relationship between these simple radiographic markers with other baseline parameters and OS of BCBM patients. Of all radiographic BCBM features, only the presence of intra-tumoral necrosis showed independent association with postoperative survival in our cohort. Interestingly, BM necrosis was already reported as prognostic factor for poor local tumor control after Gamma Knife radiosurgery of lung cancer BM [19, 48].

Although the remaining MRI markers of BCBM showed no predictive value for OS, but the observed independent associations with other patient and tumor characteristics might also be of clinical relevance. On one side, BCBM patients with negative ER RS presented more often with circular CE and considerable perifocal edema. On another side, BM with dural affection was more common in HER2-positive and supratentorial BM. In turn, higher rate of tumor recurrence was reported for BM with dural contact [64]. In summary, our findings show that certain histological characteristics (and, possibly, related adjuvant treatment strategies) might influence the radiographic pattern of BCBM.

Accordingly, the observed association between the tumor necrosis and OS in our cohort might be related to certain tumor- and patient-specific characteristics. So, individuals with shorter time interval between BC and BM diagnosis showed more often necrotic components in MRI. Shorter time interval is well established as relevant prognostic factor for BCBM. [20] Another tumor necrosis-related baseline parameter, the leukocytosis at admission, was also previously reported as a significant survival predictor for BC patients [27, 44, 47]. Finally, the RS and preoperative KPS scale scores which showed the associations with the necrosis in univariable analysis are acknowledged survival predictors of BC [31, 40, 51, 60]. For the clarification of the biological background of the association between the tumor features in the MRI scans with the other patients’ characteristics and postoperative survival, further clinical and experimental studies are mandatory.

Limitations

The retrospective design and the information bias with regard to non-unique technical features of analyzed preoperative MRI scans and partially missing follow-up data are the major limitations of this monocentric study. Moreover, imaging interpretation without the use of threshold-based automated analyses always impairs the risk of investigator bias. Another limitation of our study is the inability of assessment of the extent of metastasis resection with a MRI imaging, since only postoperative computed tomography scans were routinely performed. However, according to the surgical reports, complete resection of BM could be achieved in all cases of the analyzed cohort. Then, the standard perioperative steroid treatment could have impacted the development of leukocytosis. However, the blood sampling and begin of steroid therapy mostly on the admission day lowers the probability of steroid-induced leukocytosis in the analyzed patients. Finally, center-specific selection criteria for BCBM surgery which might vary between the clinics, particularly, in different countries, also limit the generalizability of our results. Therefore, external validation of the analyzed radiographic markers of BCBM is necessary for the clarification of the prognostic value of MRI markers for BCBM patients.

Conclusion

The radiographic pattern of BCBM on the preoperative MRI depends on certain baseline patient and tumor characteristics like the RS for ER and HER2, patient’s age, time interval between BC and BM diagnosis, and preoperative leukocytosis. In turn, tumor necrosis is independently associated with OS after BCBM surgery. The observed associations between the radiographic tumor characteristics with other clinical and immunohistochemical parameters and patients’ survival might be useful for better understanding of tumor biology in individuals with BCBM.

Change history

  • 23 February 2022

    The original version of this paper was updated to add the missing compact agreement Open Access funding note.

References

  1. Aerts HJ, Velazquez ER, Leijenaar RT, Parmar C, Grossmann P, Carvalho S, Bussink J, Monshouwer R, Haibe-Kains B, Rietveld D, Hoebers F, Rietbergen MM, Leemans CR, Dekker A, Quackenbush J, Gillies RJ, Lambin P (2014) Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nat Commun 5:4006. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5006

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Al-Okaili RN, Krejza J, Woo JH, Wolf RL, O’Rourke DM, Judy KD, Poptani H, Melhem ER (2007) Intraaxial brain masses: MR imaging-based diagnostic strategy–initial experience. Radiology 243:539–550. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2432060493

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Anders CK, Deal AM, Miller CR, Khorram C, Meng H, Burrows E, Livasy C, Fritchie K, Ewend MG, Perou CM, Carey LA (2011) The prognostic contribution of clinical breast cancer subtype, age, and race among patients with breast cancer brain metastases. Cancer 117:1602–1611. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.25746

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Andersen C, Astrup J, Gyldensted C (1994) Quantitative MR analysis of glucocorticoid effects on peritumoral edema associated with intracranial meningiomas and metastases. J Comput Assist Tomogr 18:509–518. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004728-199407000-00001

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Berghoff AS, Liao YX, Karreman MA, Ilhan-Mutlu A, Gunkel K, Sprick MR, Eisen C, Kessler T, Osswald M, Wunsche S, Feinauer M, Gril B, Marme F, Michel LL, Bago-Horvath Z, Sahm F, Becker N, Breckwoldt MO, Solecki G, Gommel M, Huang LL, Rubmann P, Thome CM, Ratliff M, Trumpp A, Steeg PS, Preusser M, Wick W, Winkler F (2021) Identification and characterization of cancer cells that initiate metastases to the brain and other organs. Mol Cancer Res 19:688–701. https://doi.org/10.1158/1541-7786.Mcr-20-0863

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Berman AT, Thukral AD, Hwang WT, Solin LJ, Vapiwala N (2013) Incidence and patterns of distant metastases for patients with early-stage breast cancer after breast conservation treatment. Clin Breast Cancer 13:88–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2012.11.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bi WL, Hosny A, Schabath MB, Giger ML, Birkbak NJ, Mehrtash A, Allison T, Arnaout O, Abbosh C, Dunn IF, Mak RH, Tamimi RM, Tempany CM, Swanton C, Hoffmann U, Schwartz LH, Gillies RJ, Huang RY, Aerts H (2019) Artificial intelligence in cancer imaging: clinical challenges and applications. CA Cancer J Clin 69:127–157. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21552

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Braman NM, Etesami M, Prasanna P, Dubchuk C, Gilmore H, Tiwari P, Plecha D, Madabhushi A (2017) Intratumoral and peritumoral radiomics for the pretreatment prediction of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy based on breast DCE-MRI. Breast Cancer Res 19:57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-017-0846-1

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A (2018) Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 68:394–424. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cagney DN, Martin AM, Catalano PJ, Redig AJ, Lin NU, Lee EQ, Wen PY, Dunn IF, Bi WL, Weiss SE, Haas-Kogan DA, Alexander BM, Aizer AA (2017) Incidence and prognosis of patients with brain metastases at diagnosis of systemic malignancy: a population-based study. Neuro Oncol 19:1511–1521. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/nox077

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Castaneda CA, Flores R, Rojas KY, Castillo M, Dolores-Cerna K, Flores C, Belmar-Lopez C, Milla E, Gomez H (2015) Prognostic factors for patients with newly diagnosed brain metastasis from breast cancer. CNS Oncol 4:137–145. https://doi.org/10.2217/cns.15.5

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Chen BT, Jin T, Ye N, Mambetsariev I, Daniel E, Wang T, Wong CW, Rockne RC, Colen R, Holodny AI, Sampath S, Salgia R (2020) Radiomic prediction of mutation status based on MR imaging of lung cancer brain metastases. Magn Reson Imaging 69:49–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2020.03.002

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen BT, Jin T, Ye N, Mambetsariev I, Wang T, Wong CW, Chen Z, Rockne RC, Colen RR, Holodny AI, Sampath S, Salgia R (2021) Predicting survival duration with MRI radiomics of brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer. Front Oncol 11:621088. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.621088

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Demaerel R, van Loon J, Van Calenbergh F (2019) Outcome after surgery in supratentorial and infratentorial solitary brain metastasis. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 161:1047–1053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-019-03865-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Diehn M, Nardini C, Wang DS, McGovern S, Jayaraman M, Liang Y, Aldape K, Cha S, Kuo MD (2008) Identification of noninvasive imaging surrogates for brain tumor gene-expression modules. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105:5213–5218. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0801279105

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Dunning AM, Healey CS, Baynes C, Maia AT, Scollen S, Vega A, Rodriguez R, Barbosa-Morais NL, Ponder BAJ, Low YL, Bingham S, Haiman CA, Le Marchand L, Broeks A, Schmidt MK, Hopper J, Southey M, Beckmann MW, Fasching PA, Peto J, Johnson N, Bojesen SE, Nordestgaard B, Milne RL, Benitez J, Hamann U, Ko Y, Schmutzler RK, Burwinkel B, Schurmann P, Dork T, Heikkinen T, Nevanlinna H, Lindblom A, Margolin S, Mannermaa A, Kosma VM, Chen XQ, Spurdle A, Change-Claude J, Flesch-Janys D, Couch FJ, Olson JE, Severi G, Baglietto L, Brresen-Dale AL, Kristensen V, Hunter DJ, Hankinson SE, Devilee P, Vreeswijk M, Lissowska J, Brinton L, Liu JJ, Hall P, Kang D, Yoo KY, Shen CY, Yu JC, Anton-Culver H, Ziogoas A, Sigurdson A, Struewing J, Easton DF, Garcia-Closas M, Humphreys MK, Morrison J, Pharoah PDP, Pooley KA, Chenevix-Trench G, SEARCH, EPIC, MEC, ABCS, ABCFS, BBCC, BBCS, CGPS, CNIO-BCS, GENICA, GC-HBOC, HABCS, HEBCS, KARBAC, KBCS, kConFab, Grp AM, MARIE, MCBCS, MCCS, NBCS, NHS, ORIGO, PBCS, SASBAC, SEBCS, TWBCS, UCIBCS, USRTS, BCAC (2009) Association of ESR1 gene tagging SNPs with breast cancer risk. Hum Mol Genet 18:1131–1139. https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddn429

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Fabregat-Franco C, Stradella A, Navarro V, Linares J, Galdeano M, Recalde S, Velasco R, Simo M, Fernadez A, Venthecourt AC, Falo C, Vazquez S, Bergamino M, Villanueva R, Pernas S, Gil-Gil MJ (2021) Validation and comparison of breast graded prognostic assessment scores in patients with breast cancer and brain metastases. Clin Transl Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-021-02577-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Franchino F, Ruda R, Soffietti R (2018) Mechanisms and therapy for cancer metastasis to the brain. Front Oncol 8:161. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2018.00161

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Huang CY, Lee CC, Yang HC, Lin CJ, Wu HM, Chung WY, Shiau CY, Guo WY, Pan DH, Peng SJ (2020) Radiomics as prognostic factor in brain metastases treated with Gamma Knife radiosurgery. J Neurooncol 146:439–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-019-03343-4

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hung MH, Liu CY, Shiau CY, Hsu CY, Tsai YF, Wang YL, Tai LC, King KL, Chao TC, Chiu JH, Su CH, Lo SS, Tzeng CH, Shyr YM, Tseng LM (2014) Effect of age and biological subtype on the risk and timing of brain metastasis in breast cancer patients. PLoS ONE 9:e89389. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089389

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Jackson A, O’Connor JP, Parker GJ, Jayson GC (2007) Imaging tumor vascular heterogeneity and angiogenesis using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Cancer Res 13:3449–3459. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-0238

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Jacobs AH, Kracht LW, Gossmann A, Ruger MA, Thomas AV, Thiel A, Herholz K (2005) Imaging in neurooncology. NeuroRx 2:333–347. https://doi.org/10.1602/neurorx.2.2.333

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Kennecke H, Yerushalmi R, Woods R, Cheang MC, Voduc D, Speers CH, Nielsen TO, Gelmon K (2010) Metastatic behavior of breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol 28:3271–3277. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.25.9820

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kim JH, Ko ES, Lim Y, Lee KS, Han BK, Ko EY, Hahn SY, Nam SJ (2017) Breast cancer heterogeneity: MR imaging texture analysis and survival outcomes. Radiology 282:665–675. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016160261

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kirsch DG, Ledezma CJ, Mathews CS, Bhan AK, Ancukiewicz M, Hochberg FH, Loeffler JS (2005) Survival after brain metastases from breast cancer in the trastuzumab era. J Clin Oncol 23:2114–2116; author reply 2116–2117. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.05.249

  26. Kniep HC, Madesta F, Schneider T, Hanning U, Schonfeld MH, Schon G, Fiehler J, Gauer T, Werner R, Gellissen S (2019) Radiomics of brain MRI: utility in prediction of metastatic tumor type. Radiology 290:479–487. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018180946

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kresovich JK, O’Brien KM, Xu Z, Weinberg CR, Sandler DP, Taylor JA (2020) Prediagnostic immune cell profiles and breast cancer. JAMA Netw Open 3:e1919536. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.19536

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Laakmann E, Witzel I, Scriba V, Grzyska U, Zu Eulenburg C, Burchardi N, Hesse T, Wurschmidt F, Fehm T, Mobus V, von Minckwitz G, Loibl S, Park-Simon TW, Mueller V (2016) Radiological patterns of brain metastases in breast cancer patients: a subproject of the German Brain Metastases in Breast Cancer (BMBC) Registry. Int J Mol Sci 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms17101615

  29. Lee SS, Ahn JH, Kim MK, Sym SJ, Gong G, Ahn SD, Kim SB, Kim WK (2008) Brain metastases in breast cancer: prognostic factors and management. Breast Cancer Res Treat 111:523–530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-007-9806-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lekanidi K, Evans AL, Shah J, Jaspan T, Baker L, Evans AJ (2013) Pattern of brain metastatic disease according to HER-2 and ER receptor status in breast cancer patients. Clin Radiol 68:1070–1073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2013.05.091

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lentzsch S, Reichardt P, Weber F, Budach V, Dorken B (1999) Brain metastases in breast cancer: prognostic factors and management. Eur J Cancer 35:580–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-8049(98)00421-3

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Leone JP, Lee AV, Brufsky AM (2015) Prognostic factors and survival of patients with brain metastasis from breast cancer who underwent craniotomy. Cancer Med 4:989–994. https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.439

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Leone JP, Leone J, Zwenger AO, Iturbe J, Leone BA, Vallejo CT (2017) Prognostic factors and survival according to tumour subtype in women presenting with breast cancer brain metastases at initial diagnosis. Eur J Cancer 74:17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2016.12.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Li X, Huang R, Ma L, Liu S, Zong X (2019) Locoregional surgical treatment improves the prognosis in primary metastatic breast cancer patients with a single distant metastasis except for brain metastasis. Breast 45:104–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2019.03.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Lin NU, Claus E, Sohl J, Razzak AR, Arnaout A, Winer EP (2008) Sites of distant recurrence and clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: high incidence of central nervous system metastases. Cancer 113:2638–2645. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23930

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Lin NU, Lee EQ, Aoyama H, Barani IJ, Barboriak DP, Baumert BG, Bendszus M, Brown PD, Camidge DR, Chang SM, Dancey J, de Vries EG, Gaspar LE, Harris GJ, Hodi FS, Kalkanis SN, Linskey ME, Macdonald DR, Margolin K, Mehta MP, Schiff D, Soffietti R, Suh JH, van den Bent MJ, Vogelbaum MA, Wen PY, Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology g (2015) Response assessment criteria for brain metastases proposal from the RANO group. Lancet Oncol 16:e270-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(15)70057-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Long JP, Li XN, Zhang F (2016) Targeting metabolism in breast cancer: how far we can go? World J Clin Oncol 7:122–130. https://doi.org/10.5306/wjco.v7.i1.122

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Matsuo S, Watanabe J, Mitsuya K, Hayashi N, Nakasu Y, Hayashi M (2017) Brain metastasis in patients with metastatic breast cancer in the real world: a single-institution, retrospective review of 12-year follow-up. Breast Cancer Res Treat 162:169–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4107-x

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Mehrabian H, Detsky J, Soliman H, Sahgal A, Stanisz GJ (2019) Advanced magnetic resonance imaging techniques in management of brain metastases. Front Oncol 9:440. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2019.00440

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Nam BH, Kim SY, Han HS, Kwon Y, Lee KS, Kim TH, Ro J (2008) Breast cancer subtypes and survival in patients with brain metastases. Breast Cancer Res 10:R20. https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr1870

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Niwinska A, Rudnicka H, Murawska M (2013) Breast cancer leptomeningeal metastasis: propensity of breast cancer subtypes for leptomeninges and the analysis of factors influencing survival. Med Oncol 30:408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-012-0408-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Ogawa K, Yoshii Y, Nishimaki T, Tamaki N, Miyaguni T, Tsuchida Y, Kamada Y, Toita T, Kakinohana Y, Tamaki W, Iraha S, Adachi G, Hyodo A, Murayama S (2008) Treatment and prognosis of brain metastases from breast cancer. J Neurooncol 86:231–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-007-9469-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Ou D, Cao L, Xu C, Kirova Y, Chen JY (2019) Upfront brain radiotherapy may improve survival for unfavorable prognostic breast cancer brain metastasis patients with Breast-GPA 0–2.0. Breast J 25:1134–1142. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.13426

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Park B, Lee HS, Lee JW, Park S (2019) Association of white blood cell count with breast cancer burden varies according to menopausal status, body mass index, and hormone receptor status: a case-control study. Sci Rep 9:5762. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-42234-6

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Park H, Lim Y, Ko ES, Cho HH, Lee JE, Han BK, Ko EY, Choi JS, Park KW (2018) Radiomics signature on magnetic resonance imaging: association with disease-free survival in patients with invasive breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 24:4705–4714. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-3783

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Park YH, Park MJ, Ji SH, Yi SY, Lim DH, Nam DH, Lee JI, Park W, Choi DH, Huh SJ, Ahn JS, Kang WK, Park K, Im YH (2009) Trastuzumab treatment improves brain metastasis outcomes through control and durable prolongation of systemic extracranial disease in HER2-overexpressing breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer 100:894–900. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6604941

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Patel DA, Xi J, Luo J, Hassan B, Thomas S, Ma CX, Campian JL (2019) Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as a predictor of survival in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 174:443–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-05106-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Patel KR, Burri SH, Asher AL, Crocker IR, Fraser RW, Zhang C, Chen Z, Kandula S, Zhong J, Press RH, Olson JJ, Oyesiku NM, Wait SD, Curran WJ, Shu HK, Prabhu RS (2016) Comparing preoperative with postoperative stereotactic radiosurgery for resectable brain metastases: a multi-institutional analysis. Neurosurgery 79:279–285. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000001096

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Procter M, Leyland-Jones B, Goldhirsch A, Untch M, Smith I, Gianni L, Baselga J, Bell R, Jackisch C, Cameron D, Dowsett M, Barrios CH, Steger G, Huang CS, Andersson M, Inbar M, Lichinitser M, Lang I, Nitz U, Iwata H, Thomssen C, Lohrisch C, Suter TM, Ruschoff J, Suto T, Greatorex V, Ward C, Straehle C, McFadden E, Dolci MS, Gelber RD, Herceptin Adjuvant Trial Study T (2005) Trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 353:1659–1672. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa052306

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Pope WB (2018) Brain metastases: neuroimaging. Handb Clin Neurol 149:89–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811161-1.00007-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Press DJ, Miller ME, Liederbach E, Yao K, Huo D (2017) De novo metastasis in breast cancer: occurrence and overall survival stratified by molecular subtype. Clin Exp Metastasis 34:457–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10585-017-9871-9

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Rasmussen IA Jr, Lindseth F, Rygh OM, Berntsen EM, Selbekk T, Xu J, Nagelhus Hernes TA, Harg E, Haberg A, Unsgaard G (2007) Functional neuronavigation combined with intra-operative 3D ultrasound: initial experiences during surgical resections close to eloquent brain areas and future directions in automatic brain shift compensation of preoperative data. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 149:365–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-006-1110-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Rostami R, Mittal S, Rostami P, Tavassoli F, Jabbari B (2016) Brain metastasis in breast cancer: a comprehensive literature review. J Neurooncol 127:407–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-016-2075-3

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Ryken TC, McDermott M, Robinson PD, Ammirati M, Andrews DW, Asher AL, Burri SH, Cobbs CS, Gaspar LE, Kondziolka D, Linskey ME, Loeffler JS, Mehta MP, Mikkelsen T, Olson JJ, Paleologos NA, Patchell RA, Kalkanis SN (2010) The role of steroids in the management of brain metastases: a systematic review and evidence-based clinical practice guideline. J Neurooncol 96:103–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-009-0057-4

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Slamon DJ, Clark GM, Wong SG, Levin WJ, Ullrich A, McGuire WL (1987) Human breast cancer: correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the HER-2/neu oncogene. Science 235:177–182. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3798106

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Slamon D, Eiermann W, Robert N, Pienkowski T, Martin M, Press M, Mackey J, Glaspy J, Chan A, Pawlicki M, Pinter T, Valero V, Liu MC, Sauter G, von Minckwitz G, Visco F, Bee V, Buyse M, Bendahmane B, Tabah-Fisch I, Lindsay MA, Riva A, Crown J, Breast Cancer International Research G (2011) Adjuvant trastuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 365:1273–1283. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0910383

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Soffietti R, Abacioglu U, Baumert B, Combs SE, Kinhult S, Kros JM, Marosi C, Metellus P, Radbruch A, Villa Freixa SS, Brada M, Carapella CM, Preusser M, Le Rhun E, Ruda R, Tonn JC, Weber DC, Weller M (2017) Diagnosis and treatment of brain metastases from solid tumors: guidelines from the European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO). Neuro Oncol 19:162–174. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/now241

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Soffietti R, Cornu P, Delattre JY, Grant R, Graus F, Grisold W, Heimans J, Hildebrand J, Hoskin P, Kalljo M, Krauseneck P, Marosi C, Siegal T, Vecht C (2006) EFNS Guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of brain metastases: report of an EFNS Task Force. Eur J Neurol 13:674–681. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-1331.2006.01506.x

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Spanberger T, Berghoff AS, Dinhof C, Ilhan-Mutlu A, Magerle M, Hutterer M, Pichler J, Wohrer A, Hackl M, Widhalm G, Hainfellner JA, Dieckmann K, Marosi C, Birner P, Prayer D, Preusser M (2013) Extent of peritumoral brain edema correlates with prognosis, tumoral growth pattern, HIF1a expression and angiogenic activity in patients with single brain metastases. Clin Exp Metastasis 30:357–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10585-012-9542-9

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Sperduto PW, Kased N, Roberge D, Xu Z, Shanley R, Luo X, Sneed PK, Chao ST, Weil RJ, Suh J, Bhatt A, Jensen AW, Brown PD, Shih HA, Kirkpatrick J, Gaspar LE, Fiveash JB, Chiang V, Knisely JP, Sperduto CM, Lin N, Mehta M (2012) Effect of tumor subtype on survival and the graded prognostic assessment for patients with breast cancer and brain metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 82:2111–2117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.02.027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Sperduto PW, Mesko S, Li J, Cagney D, Aizer A, Lin NU, Nesbit E, Kruser TJ, Chan J, Braunstein S, Lee J, Kirkpatrick JP, Breen W, Brown PD, Shi D, Shih HA, Soliman H, Sahgal A, Shanley R, Sperduto W, Lou E, Everett A, Boggs DH, Masucci L, Roberge D, Remick J, Plichta K, Buatti JM, Jain S, Gaspar LE, Wu CC, Wang TJC, Bryant J, Chuong M, Yu J, Chiang V, Nakano T, Aoyama H, Mehta MP (2020) Beyond an updated graded prognostic assessment (Breast GPA): a prognostic index and trends in treatment and survival in breast cancer brain metastases from 1985 to today. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 107:334–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.01.051

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Sperduto PW, Mesko S, Li J, Cagney D, Aizer A, Lin NU, Nesbit E, Kruser TJ, Chan J, Braunstein S, Lee J, Kirkpatrick JP, Breen W, Brown PD, Shi D, Shih HA, Soliman H, Sahgal A, Shanley R, Sperduto WA, Lou E, Everett A, Boggs DH, Masucci L, Roberge D, Remick J, Plichta K, Buatti JM, Jain S, Gaspar LE, Wu CC, Wang TJC, Bryant J, Chuong M, An Y, Chiang V, Nakano T, Aoyama H, Mehta MP (2020) Survival in patients with brain metastases: summary report on the updated diagnosis-specific graded prognostic assessment and definition of the eligibility quotient. J Clin Oncol 38:3773–3784. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.20.01255

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Subbiah IM, Lei X, Weinberg JS, Sulman EP, Chavez-MacGregor M, Tripathy D, Gupta R, Varma A, Chouhan J, Guevarra RP, Valero V, Gilbert MR, Gonzalez-Angulo AM (2015) Validation and development of a modified breast graded prognostic assessment as a tool for survival in patients with breast cancer and brain metastases. J Clin Oncol 33:2239–2245. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.58.8517

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Susko M, Yu Y, Ma L, Nakamura J, Fogh S, Raleigh DR, Golden E, Theodosopoulos PV, McDermott MW, Sneed PK, Braunstein SE (2019) Preoperative dural contact and recurrence risk after surgical cavity stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases: new evidence in support of consensus guidelines. Adv Radiat Oncol 4:458–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adro.2019.03.002

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Sze G, Milano E, Johnson C, Heier L (1990) Detection of brain metastases: comparison of contrast-enhanced MR with unenhanced MR and enhanced CT. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 11:785–791

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Tai CH, Wu CC, Hwang ME, Saraf A, Grubb C, Jani A, Lapa ME, Andrews JIS, Isaacson SR, Sonabend AM, Sheth SA, McKhann GM, Sisti MB, Bruce JN, Cheng SK, Connolly EP, Wang TJ (2018) Single institution validation of a modified graded prognostic assessment of patients with breast cancer brain metastases. CNS Oncol 7:25–34. https://doi.org/10.2217/cns-2017-0023

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Thompson PA, Brewster AM, Kim-Anh D, Baladandayuthapani V, Broom BM, Edgerton ME, Hahn KM, Murray JL, Sahin A, Tsavachidis S, Wang Y, Zhang L, Hortobagyi GN, Mills GB, Bondy ML (2011) Selective genomic copy number imbalances and probability of recurrence in early-stage breast cancer. PLoS ONE 6:e23543. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023543

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A (2015) Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 65:87–108. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21262

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Wang J, Wang S, Tang Y, Jing H, Sun G, Jin J, Liu Y, Song Y, Wang W, Fang H, Ren H, Yu Z, Li Y (2018) Comparison of treatment outcomes with breast-conserving surgery plus radiotherapy versus mastectomy for patients with stage I breast cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis. Clin Breast Cancer 18:e975–e984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2018.06.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Wronski M, Arbit E, Burt M, Galicich JH (1995) Survival after surgical treatment of brain metastases from lung cancer: a follow-up study of 231 patients treated between 1976 and 1991. J Neurosurg 83:605–616. https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1995.83.4.0605

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Yamasaki F, Kolakshyapati M, Takano M, Yonezawa U, Nishibuchi I, Imano N, Taguchi A, Onishi S, Amatya VJ, Takeshima Y, Nagata Y, Kurisu K, Sugiyama K (2019) Effect of bevacizumab against cystic components of brain tumors. Cancer Med 8:6519–6527. https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.2537

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Zafir-Lavie I, Sherbo S, Goltsman H, Badinter F, Yeini E, Ofek P, Miari R, Tal O, Liran A, Shatil T, Krispel S, Shapir N, Neil GA, Benhar I, Panet A, Satchi-Fainaro R (2018) Successful intracranial delivery of trastuzumab by gene-therapy for treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer brain metastases. J Control Release 291:80–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2018.10.017

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Zheng Y, Geng D, Yu T, Xia W, She D, Liu L, Yin B (2020) Prognostic value of pretreatment MRI texture features in breast cancer brain metastasis treated with Gamma Knife radiosurgery. Acta Radiol:284185120956296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185120956296

Download references

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Conceptualization, AM and RJ; methodology, AM, RJ, and MDO; formal analysis, AM, RJ, and LR; supervision, RJ; writing (original draft preparation), AM; writing (review and editing), RJ, MDO, LR, DP, TFD, YA, CD JH, CP, AI, RK, KW, and US.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Michel.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of University Hospital Essen (protocol code: 17–7855-BO, 05.05.2020).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Brain Tumors

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 37 KB)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Michel, A., Dinger, T., Darkwah Oppong, M. et al. Radiographic markers of breast cancer brain metastases: relation to clinical characteristics and postoperative outcome. Acta Neurochir 164, 439–449 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-021-05026-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-021-05026-4

Keywords

  • Breast cancer
  • Brain metastases
  • MRI necrosis
  • HER2