Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Mammographic and ultrasonographic features of triple-negative breast cancer compared with non-triple-negative breast cancer

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Ultrasound Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate and compare the mammographic and ultrasonographic features of TNBC with non-TNBC.

Methods

A retrospective review of 193 invasive breast cancer patients (TNBC = 32 and non-TNBC = 161) was collected from January 2014 to June 2019. The imaging features were reviewed according to the 5th edition of the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System lexicon. We used the student t-test, Mann–Whitney U test, and Fisher’s exact test for statistical analyses.

Results

Mass without calcifications was the most mammographic feature of TNBC (22 of 32, 68.8%) and more commonly found in TNBC than in non-TNBC (p = 0.007). The irregular shape (19 of 28, 67.9%) and indistinct margin (10 of 28, 35.7%) were the most common findings in the TNBC group. However, TNBC lesions appeared as round or oval shape and microlobulated margin more frequently than non–TNBC lesions (p < 0.001). Additionally, the tumor size and histological grade of TNBC were significantly higher than non-TNBC (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

TNBC has distinct imaging features compared to non-TNBC. The imaging features on mammography combined with ultrasonography can be used to detect and differentiate this subtype from other breast cancers.

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. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

The data that support the findings of this study are available from Thammasat University Hospital but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of the Faculty of Medicine, Thammasat University and the Thammasat University Hospital.

References

  1. Dai X, Li T, Bai Z, Yang Y, Liu X, Zhan J et al (2015) Breast cancer intrinsic subtype classification, clinical use and future trends. Am J Cancer Res 5(10):2929–2943

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Boisserie-Lacroix M, Bulliera B, Hurtevent-Labrota G, Ferrona S, Lippaa N, MacGrogan G (2014) Correlation between imaging and prognostic factors: molecular classification of breast cancers. Diagn Interv Imaging 95:227–233

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tirada N, Aujero M, Khorjekar G, Richards S, Chopra J, Dromi S et al (2018) Breast cancer tissue markers, genomic profiling, and other prognostic factors: a primer for radiologists. Radiographics 38:1902–1920

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dogan BE, Turnbull LW (2012) Imaging of triple-negative breast cancer. Ann Oncol 23:vi23–vi29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bae MS, Moon H-G, Han W, Noh D-Y, Ryu HS, Park I-A et al (2016) Early stage triple-negative breast cancer: imaging and clinical-pathologic factors associated with recurrence. Radiology 278:356–364

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) Breast Cancer Version 5.2020. NCCN.org 2020:BINV-9.***

  7. Wahba HA, El-Hadaad HA (2015) Current approaches in treatment of triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer Biol Med 12(2):106–116

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. American Cancer Society (2015) Breast cancer facts & figures 2015–2016. American Cancer Society, Atlanta

    Google Scholar 

  9. Medina MA, Oza G, Sharma A, Arriaga LG, Hernandez JMH, Rotello VM et al (2020) Triple-negative breast cancer: a review of conventional and advanced therapeutic strategies. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17(6):2078

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Mehanna J, Haddad FGH, Eid R, Lambertini M, Kourie HR (2019) Triple-negative breast cancer: current perspective on the evolving therapeutic landscape. Int J of Women’s Health 11:431–437

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hooley RJ, Scoutt LM, Philpotts LE (2013) Breast ultrasonography: state of the art. Radiology 268:642–659

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Buchberger W, Geiger-Gritsch S, Knapp R, Gautsch K, Oberaigner W (2018) Combined screening with mammography and ultrasound in a population-based screening program. Eur J Radiol 101:24–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Yang WT, Dryden M, Broglio K, Gilcrease M, Dawood S, Dempsey PJ (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 

  14. Kojima Y, Tsunoda H (2011) Mammography and ultrasound features of triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer 18:146–151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wojcinski S, Soliman AA, Schmidt J, Makowski L, Degenhardt F, Hillemanns P (2012) Sonographic features of triple-negative and non–triple-negative breast cancer. Am Instit Ultrasound Med 31:1531–1541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Krizmanich-Conniff KM, Paramagul C, Patterson SK, Helvie MA, Roubidoux MA, Myles JD et al (2012) Triple receptor-negative breast cancer: imaging and clinical characteristics. AJR 199:458–464

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Boisserie-Lacroix M, MacGrogan G, Debled M, Ferron S, Asad-Syed M, Mckelvie-Sebileau P 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 cancer. Oncologist 18:802–811

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Dogan BE, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Gilcrease M, Dryden MJ, Yang WT (2010) Multimodality imaging of triple receptor-negative tumors with mammography, ultrasound, and MRI. AJR 194:1160–1166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ko ES, Lee BH, Kim H, Noh W, Kim MS, Lee S (2010) Triple-negative breast cancer: correlation between imaging and pathological findings. Eur Radiol 20(5):1111–1117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wang Y, Ikeda DM, Narasimhan B, Longacre TA, Bleicher R, Pal S 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 

  21. Shin HJ, Kim HH, Huh MO, Kim MJ, Yi A, Kim H et al (2011) Correlation between mammographic and sonographic findings and prognostic factors in patients with node-negative invasive breast cancer. Br J Radiol 84:19–30

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Lerma E, Peiro G, Ramón T, Fernandez S, Martinez D, Pons C et al (2007) Immunohistochemical heterogeneity of breast carcinomas negative for estrogen receptors, progesterone receptors and HER2/Neu (Basal-Like Breast Carcinomas). Mod Pathol 20:1200–1207

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Thammasat University, 95 M.8 Paholyothin Rd., Klongluang, Pathumthani, 12120, Thailand

    Wanrudee Lohitvisate, Natthiya Pummee & Amolchaya Kwankua

Authors
  1. Wanrudee Lohitvisate
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Natthiya Pummee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amolchaya Kwankua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

LW made contributions in literatures search, study design, data interpretation, draft writing, critical revision and final approval of the final version for submitted. PN made contributions in literatures search, data collection, data analysis and interpretation and KA made contributions in draft writing, critical revision and also faculty collaborations.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wanrudee Lohitvisate.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the human ethics committee of Thammasat University (MTU-EC-RA-0-245/62) and waived the requirement for inform consent due to the retrospective nature of the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable. This study didn’t contain any individual personal’s data.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lohitvisate, W., Pummee, N. & Kwankua, A. Mammographic and ultrasonographic features of triple-negative breast cancer compared with non-triple-negative breast cancer. J Ultrasound 26, 193–200 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40477-022-00709-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40477-022-00709-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation