Abstract
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the association between mammographic features and clinicopathological characteristics in invasive ductal carcinoma. A total of 231 patients were retrospectively reviewed from January, 2011 to December, 2012. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher’s exact test, χ2 test, Spearman’s correlation and logistic regression, as appropriate. Of the 231 patients who underwent mammography, malignant calcifications were significantly more frequent in carcinomas that were human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive (P=0.001) or had a >2 cm size tumor (P=0.006). The pleomorphic-type was correlated with a p53-positive status (P=0.039) or lymph node metastasis (P=0.048), whereas the indistinct amorphous-type was associated with a HER2-positive status (P=0.026). An evident mass was frequently observed in higher Ki-67 expression-level tumors (P=0.002). In conclusion, the aforementioned correlations are noteworthy as they potentially reflect tumor attributes and may serve as a guide for treatment.
Keywords: mammography, breast neoplasm, clinic, invasive ductal carcinoma, pathology
Introduction
Mammography detection is a widely-used screening technique for breast cancer (1). Typical features characteristic of invasive malignant carcinoma include evident mass, micro-calcification, architectural distortion or asymmetric density. Tumors with various clinical and pathological characteristics have different appearances on mammography, leading to variable prognoses (2). It has been reported that HER2/neu is a factor that influences specific mammographic appearances (3). Regarding the image features of certain special histology types, Yang et al (4) compared metaplastic breast cancer and invasive ductal carcinomas (IDCs). Increasing attention has focused on the clinical and pathological characteristics of breast carcinomas, which may exhibit various types of biological behaviors over the years of treatment and prognosis (5). However, few studies have been conducted with regard to this aspect.
The aim of the present study was to investigate the association between mammographic image features and clinicopathological characteristics in IDC.
Materials and methods
Patient data and mammography studies
The clinical and pathological results and mammography reports of 231 patients were retrospectively analyzed. The mammographic appearances were assessed according to the analytical criteria of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System from the database of Tianjin Oncology Hospital Breast Cancer Center (6). All the patients were female, and underwent breast radical mastectomy between 2011 to 2013. Mammography screening detection was obtained prior to surgery.
Study design and conduction
Pathological information was prospectively collected according to patient age, estrogen2 level in circulation, tumor size, the grade of IDC, the molecular type of carcinoma, estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) status, HER2/neu status, Ki-67 expression level, p53 status and lymph node metastasis status. Mammograms were assessed by five radiologists who specialize in breast radiology at the Department of Oncology Center (Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin, China), without any information of the pathological results. The mammography studies were collected and divided into five groups according to the traditional identification of malignant breast cancer in general. The five groups were i) evident mass without calcifications (Fig. 1A), ii) malignant calcifications without mass (Fig. 1B), iii) evident mass with calcifications (Fig. 1C), iv) architectural distortion or asymmetric density without mass or calcifications (Fig. 1D) and v) no visible changes (Fig. 1E), respectively.
Figure 1.
(A) Evident mass without calcifications; (B) malignant calcifications without mass; (C) evident mass with calcifications; (D) architectural distortion or asymmetric density without mass or calcifications and (E) no visible changes.
Statistical analysis
Pathological information was correlated with mammographic appearances. The data were analyzed by the SPSS 17.0 statistical program (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical analysis was performed to assess the association using Fisher’s exact test, the χ2 test, Spearman’s correlation and logistic regression, as appropriate.
Results
Several factors generally associated with mammographic appearances
Table I demonstrates that there were significant differences between mammographic appearances in general and age, estrogen2 level in circulation, tumor size, grade of IDC, HER2 expression status, Ki-67 expression index and the molecular type of the tumor (P=0.005, 0.044, 0.020, 0.037, 0.001, 0.001 and 0.013, respectively).
Table I.
Association between mammographic appearance and clinical characteristics.
| Mammographic appearance, % | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||||||
| Characteristics | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | P-value | χ2 |
| Age, years | 0.005 | 14.91 | |||||
| >50 | 26.1 | 16.8 | 51.3 | 5.0 | 0.8 | ||
| ≤50 | 26.1 | 31.5 | 30.6 | 7.2 | 4.5 | ||
| Estrogen2 level in circulation | 0.044 | 9.794 | |||||
| >40 | 26.2 | 31.0 | 32.1 | 6.0 | 4.8 | ||
| ≤40 | 25.9 | 19.6 | 47.6 | 6.3 | 0.7 | ||
| Tumor size, cm | 0.020 | 11.668 | |||||
| ≤2 | 29.9 | 23.9 | 32.5 | 9.4 | 4.3 | ||
| >2 | 21.9 | 23.7 | 50.0 | 2.6 | 1.8 | ||
| Lymph node status | 0.365 | 4.319 | |||||
| Negative | 27.7 | 23.1 | 37.7 | 8.5 | 3.1 | ||
| Positive | 23.8 | 24.8 | 45.5 | 3.0 | 3.0 | ||
| Grade of IDC | 0.037 | 16.393 | |||||
| I | 37.5 | 16.7 | 29.2 | 16.7 | 0.0 | ||
| II | 24.8 | 28.0 | 37.9 | 5.6 | 3.7 | ||
| III | 23.9 | 13.0 | 58.7 | 2.2 | 2.2 | ||
| Estrogen receptor | 0.561 | 2.984 | |||||
| Negative | 21.7 | 20.0 | 45.0 | 8.3 | 5.0 | ||
| Positive | 27.5 | 25.1 | 39.8 | 5.3 | 2.3 | ||
| Progesterone receptor | 0.726 | 2.054 | |||||
| Negative | 23.7 | 19.7 | 46.1 | 6.6 | 3.9 | ||
| Positive | 27.1 | 25.8 | 38.7 | 5.8 | 2.6 | ||
| HER2 expression status | 0.001 | 19.993 | |||||
| Negative | 36.3 | 27.5 | 22.5 | 10.0 | 3.8 | ||
| Positive | 20.5 | 21.9 | 51.0 | 4.0 | 2.6 | ||
| Ki-67 expression index | 0.001 | 17.650 | |||||
| ≥45% | 22.4 | 13.4 | 59.7 | 1.5 | 3.0 | ||
| <45% | 27.8 | 28.4 | 32.7 | 8.0 | 3.1 | ||
| p53 status | 0.066 | 8.794 | |||||
| Negative | 29.3 | 25.6 | 35.4 | 7.3 | 2.4 | ||
| Positive | 18.5 | 20.0 | 53.8 | 3.1 | 4.6 | ||
| Molecular type | 0.013 | 25.423 | |||||
| Luminal A | 34.8 | 29.0 | 24.6 | 8.7 | 2.9 | ||
| Luminal B | 22.5 | 23.5 | 50.0 | 2.9 | 1.0 | ||
| HER2 overexpression | 18.4 | 18.4 | 53.1 | 6.1 | 4.1 | ||
| Triple negative | 40.0 | 20.0 | 10.0 | 20.0 | 10.0 | ||
Mammogram appearance: 1, mass without malignant calcification; 2, malignant calcification without mass; 3, mass with malignant calcification; 4, architectural distortion or asymmetric density without mass or calcification; 5, none; IDC, invasive ductal carcinoma.
Comparison of mammographic features with the immunohistochemistry labeling index of the tumor
In the HER2 group, significant differences were identified between the presence and absence of malignant calcifications and indistinct or amorphous calcifications on mammography (P=0.001 and P=0.026). In the Ki-67 index group, significant differences were identified between the presence and absence of an evident mass (P=0.002). In the expression of the p53 group, significant differences were identified between the presence and absence of pleomorphic calcifications on mammography (P=0.039). These results are shown in Tables II-V, respectively.
Table II.
Association between malignant calcification and clinical characteristics.
| Malignant calcification, % | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||||||||
| Characteristics | Positive | Negative | χ2 | P-value | r | Sig | HR (adjusted) | 95% CI |
| HER2 (n=231) | 11.989 | 0.001 | 0.228 | 0.000 | 3.205 | 1.617–6.354 | ||
| Negative | 50.0 | 50.0 | ||||||
| Positive | 72.8 | 27.2 | ||||||
| Molecular type (n=230) | 13.496 | 0.004 | 0.080 | 0.227 | ||||
| Luminal A | 53.6 | 46.4 | ||||||
| Luminal B | 73.5 | 26.5 | ||||||
| HER2 overexpression | 71.4 | 28.6 | ||||||
| Triple negative | 30.0 | 70.0 | ||||||
| p53 (n=229) | 3.373 | 0.066 | 0.121 | 0.067 | ||||
| Negative | 61.0 | 39.0 | ||||||
| Positive | 73.8 | 26.2 | ||||||
| Ki-67 (n=229) | 2.997 | 0.083 | 0.114 | 0.084 | ||||
| ≥45% | 73.1 | 26.9 | ||||||
| <45% | 61.1 | 38.9 | ||||||
| Tumor size, cm (n=231) | 7.567 | 0.006 | 0.181 | 0.006 | 1.913 | 1.075–3.405 | ||
| ≤2 | 56.4 | 43.6 | ||||||
| >2 | 73.7 | 26.3 | ||||||
CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio.
Table V.
Association between indistinct and amorphous calcifications and clinical characteristics.
| Indistinct and amorphous calcifications, % | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||||||||
| Characteristics | Positive | Negative | χ2 | P-value | r | Sig | HR (adjusted) | 95% CI |
| Age, years (n=230) | 3.319 | 0.071 | −0.120 | 0.068 | ||||
| >50 | 20.2 | 79.8 | ||||||
| ≤50 | 30.6 | 69.4 | ||||||
| HER2 (n=231) | 5.085 | 0.026 | 0.149 | 0.024 | 2.155 | 1.077–4.315 | ||
| Negative | 16.2 | 83.8 | ||||||
| Positive | 29.8 | 70.2 | ||||||
| Tumor size, cm (n=231) | 3.729 | 0.068 | 0.127 | 0.053 | ||||
| ≤2 | 19.7 | 80.3 | ||||||
| >2 | 33.7 | 66.3 | ||||||
| p53 (n=229) | 3.657 | 0.066 | 0.127 | 0.056 | ||||
| Negative | 6.1 | 93.9 | ||||||
| Positive | 13.8 | 86.2 | ||||||
| Ki-67 (n=229) | 3.497 | 0.061 | −0.124 | 0.061 | ||||
| ≥45% | 3.0 | 97.0 | ||||||
| <45% | 10.5 | 89.5 | ||||||
CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio.
Comparison of mammographic features with the pathological index of the tumor
There were significant differences between the presence and absence of malignant calcifications in the size of the tumor group (P=0.006) (Table II). Furthermore, in the group of an evident mass on mammogram, there were significant differences between irregular and lobular or oval mass shape in various grades of IDC (P=0.001) (Table VI).
Table VI.
Association between the shape of mass and clinical characteristics.
| Shape of mass (%) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||||||||
| Characteristics | Regular | Irregular | χ2 | P-value | r | Sig | HR (adjusted) | 95% CI |
| Tumor size, cm (n=155) | 4.841 | 0.036 | 0.177 | 0.027 | ||||
| ≤2 | 61.6 | 38.4 | ||||||
| >2 | 43.9 | 56.1 | ||||||
| Grade of invasive ductal carcinoma (n=155) | 10.604 | 0.001 | 0.268 | 0.001 | 2.365 | 1.263–4.430 | ||
| I | 62.5 | 37.5 | ||||||
| II | 60.4 | 39.6 | ||||||
| III | 26.3 | 73.7 | ||||||
CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio.
Comparison of mammographic features with the nodal involvement status of the tumor
In terms of the nodal involvement of the tumor, the data in Table IV demonstrated that there were significant differences between the presence and absence of pleomorphic calcifications (P=0.048).
Table IV.
Association between pleomorphic calcifications and clinical characteristics.
| Pleomorphic calcifications, % | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||||||||
| Characteristics | Positive | Negative | χ2 | P-value | r | Sig | HR (adjusted) | 95% CI |
| HER2 (n=231) | 3.186 | 0.074 | 0.117 | 0.075 | ||||
| Negative | 15.0 | 85.0 | ||||||
| Positive | 25.2 | 74.8 | ||||||
| p53 (n=229) | 4.246 | 0.039 | 0.136 | 0.040 | 2.049 | 1.051–3.997 | ||
| Negative | 18.3 | 81.7 | ||||||
| Positive | 30.8 | 69.2 | ||||||
| Ki-67 (n=229) | 3.556 | 0.059 | 0.125 | 0.059 | ||||
| ≥45% | 29.9 | 70.1 | ||||||
| <45% | 18.5 | 81.5 | ||||||
| Tumor size, cm (n=231) | 2.895 | 0.089 | 0.112 | 0.090 | ||||
| ≤2 | 17.1 | 82.9 | ||||||
| >2 | 26.3 | 73.7 | ||||||
| Lymph node status (n=231) | 3.909 | 0.048 | 0.130 | 0.048 | 1.993 | 1.049–3.785 | ||
| Negative | 16.9 | 83.1 | ||||||
| Positive | 27.7 | 72.3 | ||||||
CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio.
Discussion
In previous years, the mammogram has become one of the most significant diagnostic approaches of breast tumor. Findings of previous studies (7–10) have indicated that various types of breast tumor present different appearances on mammogram. Several typical mammographic appearances can reflect the tumor attributes and its biological behaviors, which may provide valuable information to the clinicians. Mammographic features can be used as predictors of prognosis and pathological characteristics, which influence the subsequent treatment. Therefore, the mammographic pattern is considered a risk factor for subsequent development of breast cancer (11).
It is known that specific types of breast tumor, including colloid or tubular, manifest particular appearances on mammogram (12,13). However, the IDC is the most frequent histological type among breast tumors. In general, breast tumors exhibit up to five different radiological patterns corresponding to the biological heterogeneity of these tumors.
The data of the present study have demonstrated that several typical mammographic features are correlated with certain indices of immunohistochemistry and pathology, and lymph node metastasis status. The aforementioned evidence may reflect tumor attributes to a certain extent.
In terms of the HER2 expression level, the data indicated that the ratio of malignant calcifications on mammogram was significantly high in HER2-positive cases. In particular, differences existed between the HER2-positive or -negative group on mammogram. A study by Gajdos et al (14) suggested that calcifications were associated with HER2 overexpression. The presence of calcifications in a mass or segmental calcifications on mammography were significantly associated with a positive HER2 status. Studies have been conducted on ER-negative breast cancer patients, which demonstrated that in the ER-negative group, HER2-positive breast cancers are more likely to be irregular masses, with spiculated margins associated with pleomorphic calcifications, whereas the HER2-negative breast cancers have been more frequently identified as round/variform-shaped masses with indistinct margins and have shown a great diversity of morphological types of calcifications comparatively (15). Thus far, a few studies have reported the association between HER2 overexpression of various types of tumor and malignant-appearing calcifications with regard to ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), non-palpable breast carcinomas and invasive breast carcinomas (3,13,16). These studies demonstrated that, regardless of the type, the malignant calcifications on mammography were correlated with HER2 status, tending to exist in the HER2 overexpression cases. As for the IDCs, the results were concordant with previous studies conducted concerning this aspect (3). Based on the aforementioned evidence, it may be inferred that patients who exhibit the malignant calcifications on mammography tend to be HER2 overexpressed when they are newly diagnosed. As is widely known, the HER2 status is an important prognostic factor for overall survival and disease-free survival of patients with breast cancer (17), which is closely associated with the HER2 receptor-targeted trastuzumab therapy.
Previous studies have demonstrated the association between p53 and Ki-67 expression with mammography. Gilliland et al (18) concluded that rapidly growing and aggressive tumors are responsible for a considerable amount of breast cancer detection failure by mammography. The identification of cancer within 12 months following a negative mammogram is defined as ‘interval breast cancer.’ The dysregulation of the cell cycle and potential genetic instability were measured by p53 expression, whereas the proliferation rate of the tumor was measured by the Ki-67 index. The results of the study indicated that the proportion of pleomorphic calcifications on mammography in p53-positive expression cases was significantly higher compared with the negative cases. The rates of evident breast mass on mammography in the high Ki-67-expression level group were significantly higher than those with low expression levels. The study by Porter et al (19) also indicated that screening mammography may miss certain rapidly proliferating, high-grade tumors. Thus, the studies highlight that more concerns should be taken for patients with pleomorphic calcifications or evident breast mass on mammogram. It is likely that these mammographic appearances are correlated with p53 or Ki-67 expression status, which are prognostic factors of great importance (20,21).
In addition, the present study examined the correlation between the mammographic feature of nipple retraction and PR expression status. No specific mammographic findings were significantly associated with ER or PR status in the study by Gajdos et al (14). Another study found that non-spiculated margins or hyperdense masses were associated with a negative ER status (22). The results of the data in the present study showed that the presentation ratio of the nipple retraction symptom was significantly higher in PR-positive expression patients compared with negative expression of PR. Therefore, this finding may indicate that patients who showed symptoms of nipple retraction on mammogram prior to surgery were likely to exhibit PR-positive expression, which may provide particular guidance for further endocrine treatment (23).
As for the pathological characteristics of tumors, the results of the present study demonstrated significant differences between the tumor size, various histological types and grades of IDC with mammographic features, malignant or pleomorphic calcifications, and the shape of the breast mass on the mammogram. Among the type of evident mass on mammogram, irregular shapes of mass were more frequently present in tumors with grade 3 IDC. By contrast, the studies by Rotstein and Neerhut (24) and Lamb et al (25) indicated that high-grade IDCs may paradoxically exhibit features similar to those of benign breast masses, including a well-defined margin. Masses with non-spiculated margins on mammography were associated with a higher histological grade (22).
To a certain extent, it can account for the phenomenon that tumor attributes contribute to the variety of mammographic appearance types. However, due to the fact that the majority of patients in the present study were IDC type, the number of IDC accompanied by DCIS or other histological types was relatively small. Therefore, further studies are required to clarify this aspect. The aforementioned information on mammography can offer accurate pre-operative evaluation for breast-conserving surgery.
Regarding the nodal involvement, the data have demonstrated that pleomorphic calcifications, overlying skin thickening or dimpling on mammogram were more frequently present in the positive lymph node status group. Awareness of this information prior to surgery would aid clinicians in formulating the most suitable choices of surgical treatment modality for patients, including mastectomy or breast-conserving surgery (26). Another study revealed that the presence of calcifications alone or masses associated with calcifications on mammography was significantly associated with positive extensive intraductal component, and this contraindicates breast-conserving surgery and other mammographic features, including irregular shape, indistinct margin, calcifications within a mass and segmental calcifications (23).
In conclusion, it is of note that there are significant differences between the mammographic appearances with breast carcinoma attributes. The correlation of mammography image features and clinical and pathological characteristics exist in IDCs. Based on these findings, we believe that the mammography image appearances may reflect certain biological behaviors of tumors prior to surgery, which are useful for future evaluation and treatment of patients.
Table III.
Association between breast mass and clinical characteristics.
| Mass, % | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||||||||
| Characteristics | Positive | Negative | χ2 | P-value | r | Sig | HR (adjusted) | 95% CI |
| Age, years (n=230) | 11.041 | 0.001 | 0.219 | 0.001 | ||||
| >50 | 77.3 | 22.7 | ||||||
| ≤50 | 56.8 | 43.2 | ||||||
| Estrogen2 level l in circulation (n=227) | 5.501 | 0.027 | −0.156 | 0.019 | ||||
| >40 | 26.6 | 73.4 | ||||||
| ≤40 | 58.3 | 41.7 | ||||||
| HER2 (n=231) | 3.865 | 0.049 | 0.129 | 0.050 | ||||
| Negative | 58.8 | 41.3 | ||||||
| Positive | 71.5 | 28.5 | ||||||
| Ki-67 (n=229) | 9.969 | 0.002 | 0.209 | 0.001 | 2.741 | 1.265–5.940 | ||
| ≥45% | 82.1 | 17.9 | ||||||
| <45% | 60.5 | 39.5 | ||||||
| Grade of invasive ductal carcinoma (n=231) | 6.405 | 0.041 | 0.128 | 0.052 | ||||
| I | 66.7 | 33.3 | ||||||
| II | 62.7 | 37.3 | ||||||
| III | 82.6 | 17.4 | ||||||
CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio.
Acknowledgements
The present study was supported by the Program for the Applied Basic Research and Cutting-edge Technology Project of Tianjin Science and Technology Commission to Professor Cao (grant no. 11JCZDJC28000).
References
- 1.Tabar L, Yen MF, Vitak B, Chen HH, Smith RA, Duffy SW. Mammography service screening and mortality in breast cancer patients: 20-year follow-up before and after introduction of screening. Lancet. 2003;361:1405–1410. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13143-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Tabar L, Tony Chen HH, Amy Yen MF, Tot T, Tung TH, Chen LS, Chiu YH, Duffy SW, Smith RA. Mammographic tumor features can predict long-term outcomes reliably in women with 1–14-mm invasive breast carcinoma. Cancer. 2004;101:1745–1759. doi: 10.1002/cncr.20582. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Seo BK, Pisano ED, Kuzimak CM, Koomen M, Pavic D, Lee Y, Cole EB, Lee J. Correlation of HER-2/neu overexpression with mammography and age distribution in primary breast carcinomas. Acad Radiol. 2006;13:1211–1218. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2006.06.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Yang WT, Hennessy B, Broglio K, Mills C, Sneige N, Davis WG, Valero V, Hunt KK, Gilcrease MZ. Imaging differences in metaplastic and invasive ductal carcinomas of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189:1288–1293. doi: 10.2214/AJR.07.2056. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Zhao J, Liu H, Wang M, Gu L, et al. Characteristics and prognosis for molecular breast cancer subtypes in Chinese women. J Surg Oncol. 2009;100:89–94. doi: 10.1002/jso.21307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Breast Imaging Research Centre, American College of Radiology and American College of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. American College of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Am Coll Radiol. 1998 [Google Scholar]
- 7.Ildefonso C, Vazquez J, Guinea O, et al. The mammographic appearance of breast carcinomas of invasive ductal type: relationship with clinicopathological parameters, biological features and prognosis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Repord Biol. 2008;136:224–231. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2006.10.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Broberg A, Glas U, Gustafsson SA, Hellström L, Somell A. Relationship between mammographic pattern and estrogen receptor content in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1983;3:201–207. doi: 10.1007/BF01803562. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Paradiso A, Ventrella V, Farchi G, et al. Mammographic aspect, cell kinetics and hormone receptor status of operable breast cancer. Oncology. 1993;50:104–109. doi: 10.1159/000227157. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Wilson TE, Helvie MA, Oberman HA, Joynt LK. Pure and mixed mucinous carcinoma of the breast: pathologic basis for differences in mammographic appearance. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995;165:285–289. doi: 10.2214/ajr.165.2.7618541. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Ciatto S, Zappa M. A prospective study of the value of mammographic patterns as indicators of breast cancer risk in a screening experience. Eur J Radiol. 1993;17:122–125. doi: 10.1016/0720-048x(93)90048-r. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Matsuda M, Yoshimoto M, Iwase T, et al. Mammographic and clinicopathological features of mucinous carcinoma of the breast. Breast Cancer. 2000;7:65–70. doi: 10.1007/BF02967190. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Günhan-Bilgen I, Oktay A. Tubular carcinoma of the breast: mammographic, sonographic, clinical and pathologic findings. Eur J Radiol. 2007;61:158–162. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2006.08.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Gajdos C, Tartter PI, Bleiweiss IJ, et al. Mammographic appearance of nonpalpable breast cancer reflects pathologic characteristics. Ann Surg. 2002;235:246–251. doi: 10.1097/00000658-200202000-00013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Enache DE, Georgescu CV, Pătrană N. Negative estrogen-receptor invasive breast carcinoma: mammographic aspects, correlations with HER2/neu oncoprotein status. Rom J Morphol Embryol. 2012;53(3 Suppl):755–762. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Evans AJ, Pinder SE, Ellis IO, et al. Correlations between the mammographic features of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and C-erbB-2 oncogene expression. Nottingham Breast Team. Clin Radiol. 1994;49:559–562. doi: 10.1016/s0009-9260(05)82937-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Slamon DJ, Clark GM, Wong SG, Levin WJ, Ullrich A, McGuire WL. Human breast cancer: correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the HER-2/neu oncogene. Science. 1987;235:177–182. doi: 10.1126/science.3798106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Gilliland FD, Joste N, Stauber PM, Hunt WC, Rosenberg R, Redlich G, Key CR. Biologic characteristics of interval and screen-detected breast cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:743–749. doi: 10.1093/jnci/92.9.743. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Porter PL, El-Bastawissi AY, Mandelson MT, Lin MG, Khalid N, Watney EA, Cousens L, White D, Taplin S, White E. Breast tumor characteristics as predictors of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91:2020–2028. doi: 10.1093/jnci/91.23.2020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Sirvent JJ, Fortuño-Mar A, Olona M, Orti A. Prognostic value of p53 protein expression and clinicopathological factors in infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the breast. A study of 192 patients. Histol Histopathol. 2001;16:99–106. doi: 10.14670/HH-16.99. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Jalava P, Kuopio T, Juntti-Patinen L, Kotkansalo T, Kronqvist P, Collan Y. Ki67 immunohistochemistry: a valuable marker in prognostication but with a risk of misclassification: proliferation subgroups formed based on Ki67 immunoreactivity and standardized mitotic index. Histopathology. 2006;48:674–682. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2006.02402.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Shin HJ, Kim HH, Huh MO, Kim MJ, Yi A, Kim H, Son BH, Ahn SH. Correlation between mammographic and sonographic findings and prognostic factors in patients with node-negative invasive breast cancer. Br J Radiol. 2011;84:19–30. doi: 10.1259/bjr/92960562. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Liu S, Chia SK, Mehl E, Leung S, Rajput A, Cheang MC, Nielsen TO. Progesterone receptor is a significant factor associated with clinical outcomes and effect of adjuvant tamoxifen therapy in breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;119:53–61. doi: 10.1007/s10549-009-0318-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Rotstein AH, Neerhut PK. Ultrasound characteristics of histologically proven grade 3 invasive ductal breast carcinoma. Australas Radiol. 2005;49:476–479. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1673.2005.01515.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Lamb PM, Perry NM, Vinnicombe SJ, Wells CA. Correlation between ultrasound characteristics, mammographic findings and histological grade in patients with invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. Clin Radiol. 2000;55:40–44. doi: 10.1053/crad.1999.0333. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Kollias J, Gill PG, Beamond B, et al. Clinical and radiological predictors of complete excision in breast-conserving surgery for primary breast cancer. Aust N Z J Surg. 1998;68:702–706. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-2197.1998.tb04655.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]