J Korean Soc Radiol.  2018 Oct;79(4):196-203. 10.3348/jksr.2018.79.4.196.

Breast Cancer in Women Younger than 35-Years-Old: Correlation of MRI Findings with Clinicopathological Features and Immunohistochemical Subtypes

• Lee SH
• Kang BJ
• An YY

• KMID: 2421222
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2018.79.4.196

Abstract

PURPOSE
Breast cancer of young women shows poor prognosis, but the imaging findings has not been well known. We evaluated the MRI characteristics of young women.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
From January 2009 to December 2013, we included 91 patients under the age of 35 who were diagnosed histologically as breast cancer and underwent MRI. The relationship between the clinical and histopathological prognostic factors was obtained using electronic medical records and the retrospective analysis of MRI findings was statistically analyzed.
RESULTS
The most common imaging findings of breast mass were irregular shape (53.7%), irregular margin (53.7%), heterogeneous enhancement (53.8%), and type 3 kinetic curve pattern (57.1%). In the multivariate analysis, the rim enhancement was significantly related to the higher tissue grade (p = 0.001), estrogen receptor negative (p < 0.001), and progesterone receptor negative (p < 0.001). The irregular mass shape (p = 0.015) and type 3 kinetic curve (p = 0.002) were related to lymph node metastasis.
CONCLUSION
MRI findings of breast cancer in young women (≤ 35-years-old) are not different from those of general breast cancer, but the rim enhancement, irregular mass shape and type 3 kinetic curve are related with pathologic factors of poor prognosis.

MeSH Terms

Breast Neoplasms*
Breast*
Electronic Health Records
Estrogens
Female
Humans
Lymph Nodes
Magnetic Resonance Imaging*
Mammography
Multivariate Analysis
Neoplasm Metastasis
Prognosis
Receptors, Progesterone
Retrospective Studies
Ultrasonography
Young Adult
Estrogens
Receptors, Progesterone

Reference

1.Jemal A., Clegg LX., Ward E., Ries LA., Wu X., Jamison PM, et al. Annual report to the naion on the status of cancer, 1975-2001, with a special feature regarding survival. Cancer. 2004. 101:3–27.

2.Han W., Kim SW., Park IA., Kang D., Kim SW., Youn YK, et al. Young age: an independent risk factor for disease-free survival in women with operable breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2004. 4:82.

3.Yoo KY., Park SK., Sung J., Kang D., Kim YC., Kang HS, et al. [High risk groups for female breast cancer in Korea]. J Korean Cancer Assoc. 1998. 30:435–449.

4.Korea Central Cancer Registry, 2002 Annual Report of the Korea. Seoul: Korea Central Cancer Registry;2003.

5.Ko SS. Korean Breast Cancer Society. Chronological changing patterns of clinical characteristics of Korean breast cancer patients during 10 years (1996-2006) using nationwide breast cancer registration on-line program: biannual update. J Surg Oncol. 2008. 98:318–323.

6.Gabriel CA., Domchek SM. Breast cancer in young women. Breast Cancer Res. 2010. 12:212.

7.Klauber-DeMore N. Tumor biology of breast cancer in young women. Breast Dis. 2006. 23:9–15.

8.American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging and Reporting and Data System (ACR BI-RADS® Atlas). Reston, VA: American College of Radiology. 2013.

9.Korea Central Cancer Registry, 2014 Annual Report of the Korea. Seoul: Korea Central Cancer Registry;2014.

10.An YY., Kim SH., Kang BJ. Characteristic features and usefulness of MRI in breast cancer in patients under 40 years old: correlations with conventional imaging and prognostic factors. Breast Cancer. 2014. 21:302–315.

11.Kim J., Jang M., Kim SM., Yun BL., Lee JY., Kim EK, et al. Clinicopathological and imaging features of breast cancer in Korean women under 40 years of age. J Korean Soc Radiol. 2017. 76:375–385.

12.Kim JY., Lee SH., Lee JW., Kim S., Choo KS. Magnetic resonance imaging characteristics of invasive breast cancer in women aged less than 35 years. Acta Radiol. 2015. 56:924–932.

13.Collins LC., Marotti JD., Gelber S., Cole K., Ruddy K., Kereako-glow S, et al. Pathologic features and molecular phenotype by patient age in a large cohort of young women with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012. 131:1061–1066.

14.Kim EK., Noh WC., Han W., Noh DY. Prognostic significance of young age (< 35 years) by subtype based on ER, PR, and HER2 status in breast cancer: a nationwide registry-based study. World J Surg. 2011. 35:1244–1253.

15.Morrison DH., Rahardja D., King E., Peng Y., Sarode VR. Tumour biomarker expression relative to age and molecular subtypes of invasive breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2012. 107:382–387.

16.Cancello G., Maisonneuve P., Rotmensz N., Viale G., Mastro-pasqua MG., Pruneri G, et al. Prognosis and adjuvant treatment effects in selected breast cancer subtypes of very young women (< 35 years) with operable breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2010. 21:1974–1981.

17.Cancello G., Maisonneuve P., Mazza M., Montagna E., Rotmensz N., Viale G, et al. Pathological features and survival outcomes of very young patients with early breast cancer: how much is “very young”? Breast. 2013. 22:1046–1051.

18.Lin CH., Liau JY., Lu YS., Huang CS., Lee WC., Kuo KT, et al. Molecular subtypes of breast cancer emerging in young women in Taiwan: evidence for more than just westernization as a reason for the disease in Asia. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009. 18:1807–1814.

19.Putti TC., El-Rehim DM., Rakha EA., Paish CE., Lee AH., Pinder SE, et al. Estrogen receptor-negative breast carcinomas: a review of morphology and immunophenotypical analysis. Mod Pathol. 2005. 18:26–35.

20.Jinguji M., Kajiya Y., Kamimura K., Nakajo M., Sagara Y., Taka-hama T, et al. Rim enhancement of breast cancers on contrast-enhanced MR imaging: relationship with prognostic factors. Breast Cancer. 2006. 13:64–73.

21.Szabó BK., Aspelin P., Kristoffersen Wiberg M., Tot T., Boné B. Invasive breast cancer: correlation of dynamic MR features with prognostic factors. Eur Radiol. 2003. 13:2425–2435.

22.Teifke A., Behr O., Schmidt M., Victor A., Vomweg TW., Thelen M, et al. Dynamic MR imaging of breast lesions: correlation with microvessel distribution pattern and histologic characteristics of prognosis. Radiology. 2006. 239:351–360.

23.Jatoi I., Hilsenbeck SG., Clark GM., Osborne CK. Significance of axillary lymph node metastasis in primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999. 17:2334–2340.

24.Giardina C., Ricco R., Lettini T., Gentile A., Serio G., De Bene-dictis G, et al. Relation between primary tumor shape and biological behavior in breast cancer. Tumori. 1989. 75:117–122.

25.Guo Q., Dong Z., Zhang L., Ning C., Li Z., Wang D, et al. Ultrasound features of breast cancer for predicting axillary lymph node metastasis. J Ultrasound Med. 2018. 37:1353–1354.

26.Bahri S., Chen JH., Yu HJ., Kuzucan A., Nalcioglu O., Su MY. Can dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) predict tumor recurrence and lymph node status in patients with breast cancer? Ann Oncol. 2008. 19:822–824.

27.Loiselle CR., Eby PR., DeMartini WB., Peacock S., Bittner N., Lehman CD, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI kinetics of invasive breast cancer: a potential prognostic marker for radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010. 76:1314–1319.