Diagnostic value of ultrasound combined with magnetic resonance imaging in different stages of breast cancer

Pan,Qiaohong; Ji,Jianwu

doi:10.3892/ol.2018.9589

Diagnostic value of ultrasound combined with magnetic resonance imaging in different stages of breast cancer

Authors:
- Qiaohong Pan
- Jianwu Ji
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Ultrasound, Heping Hospital Affiliated to Changzhi Medical College, Changzhi, Shanxi 046000, P.R. China, Department of MRI, Heping Hospital Affiliated to Changzhi Medical College, Changzhi, Shanxi 046000, P.R. China
Published online on: October 17, 2018 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2018.9589
Pages: 209-214
Copyright: © Pan et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

Diagnostic value of ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in breast cancer were investigated. One hundred and forty breast cancer patients diagnosed in Heping Hospital Affiliated to Changzhi Medical College from June 2016 to June 2018 were collected, used as breast cancer group, 80 patients with benign breast tumor in the same period were the benign group. Pathological results were used to compare the diagnostic coincidence of US and MRI in breast cancer patients. The positive expression case rates of estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor were significantly higher in breast cancer group than those in benign group, but that of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (Her-2) was significantly lower in breast cancer group than that in benign group (all P<0.05). The sensitivity (SEN) of MRI alone and that of US combined with MRI were higher than that of US alone (P<0.05). The specificity (SPE) of MRI alone was lower than that of US alone and US combined with MRI (P<0.05). The NPV of US combined with MRI was significantly higher than that of US alone (P<0.05). The Youden index (YI) of US combined with MRI was significantly higher than that of US alone and MRI alone. In the diagnosis of N2, that of US combined with MRI was significantly higher than those of US alone and MRI alone (P<0.05). In stages of M0 and M1 among three methods, those of MRI alone and US combined with MRI were higher than that of US alone (P<0.05). US combined with MRI for the diagnosis of breast cancer has higher SEN and SPE, with better accuracy rate for the identification of each stage. Reducing the incidence of missed diagnosis and misdiagnosis that may be caused by single diagnosis and treatment, it is conducive to clinical screening and guiding clinical symptomatic treatment.

View Figures

View References

1	Merckel LG, Knuttel FM, Deckers R, van Dalen T, Schubert G, Peters NH, Weits T, van Diest PJ, Mali WP, Vaessen PH, et al: First clinical experience with a dedicated MRI-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound system for breast cancer ablation. Eur Radiol. 26:4037–4046. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Onitilo AA, Engel JM, Greenlee RT and Mukesh BN: Breast cancer subtypes based on ER/PR and Her2 expression: Comparison of clinicopathologic features and survival. Clin Med Res. 7:4–13. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Chen Y, Chen K, Xiao X, Nie Y, Qu S, Gong C, Su F and Song E: Pretreatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio is correlated with response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy as an independent prognostic indicator in breast cancer patients: A retrospective study. BMC Cancer. 16:3202016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Keam B, Im SA, Kim HJ, Oh DY, Kim JH, Lee SH, Chie EK, Han W, Kim DW, Moon WK, et al: Prognostic impact of clinicopathologic parameters in stage II/III breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant docetaxel and doxorubicin chemotherapy: Paradoxical features of the triple negative breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 7:2032007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Siroy A, Abdul-Karim FW, Miedler J, Fong N, Fu P, Gilmore H and Baar J: MUC1 is expressed at high frequency in early-stage basal-like triple-negative breast cancer. Hum Pathol. 44:2159–2166. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Abe H, Schacht D, Kulkarni K, Shimauchi A, Yamaguchi K, Sennett CA and Jiang Y: Accuracy of axillary lymph node staging in breast cancer patients: An observer-performance study comparison of MRI and ultrasound. Acad Radiol. 20:1399–1404. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Kuhl C, Kuhn W, Braun M and Schild H: Pre-operative staging of breast cancer with breast MRI: One step forward, two steps back? Breast. 16 (Suppl 2):S34–S44. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Fouad TM, Barrera AMG, Reuben JM, Lucci A, Woodward WA, Stauder MC, Lim B, DeSnyder SM, Arun B, Gildy B, et al: Inflammatory breast cancer: A proposed conceptual shift in the UICC-AJCC TNM staging system. Lancet Oncol. 18:e228–e232. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Gahlaut R, Bennett A, Fatayer H, Dall BJ, Sharma N, Velikova G, Perren T, Dodwell D, Lansdown M and Shaaban AM: Effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on breast cancer phenotype, ER/PR and HER2 expression - Implications for the practising oncologist. Eur J Cancer. 60:40–48. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Dent R, Trudeau M, Pritchard KI, Hanna WM, Kahn HK, Sawka CA, Lickley LA, Rawlinson E, Sun P and Narod SA: Triple-negative breast cancer: Clinical features and patterns of recurrence. Clin Cancer Res. 13:4429–4434. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Yao ZX, Lu LJ, Wang RJ, Jin LB, Liu SC, Li HY, Ren GS, Wu KN, Wang DL and Kong LQ: Discordance and clinical significance of ER, PR, and HER2 status between primary breast cancer and synchronous axillary lymph node metastasis. Med Oncol. 31:7982014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Nik-Zainal S, Davies H, Staaf J, Ramakrishna M, Glodzik D, Zou X, Martincorena I, Alexandrov LB, Martin S, Wedge DC, et al: Landscape of somatic mutations in 560 breast cancer whole-genome sequences. Nature. 534:47–54. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Tseng J, Kyrillos A, Liederbach E, Spear GG, Ecanow J, Wang CH, Czechura T, Kantor O, Miller M, Winchester DJ, et al: Clinical accuracy of preoperative breast MRI for breast cancer. J Surg Oncol. 115:924–931. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Li W, Jia M, Qin X, Hu J, Zhang X and Zhou G: Harmful effect of ERβ on BCRP-mediated drug resistance and cell proliferation in ERα/PR-negative breast cancer. FEBS J. 280:6128–6140. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Segara D, Krop IE, Garber JE, Winer E, Harris L, Bellon JR, Birdwell R, Lester S, Lipsitz S, Iglehart JD, et al: Does MRI predict pathologic tumor response in women with breast cancer undergoing preoperative chemotherapy? J Surg Oncol. 96:474–480. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Heijnsdijk EA, Warner E, Gilbert FJ, Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Evans G, Causer PA, Eeles RA, Kaas R, Draisma G, Ramsay EA, et al: Differences in natural history between breast cancers in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers and effects of MRI screening-MRISC, MARIBS, and Canadian studies combined. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 21:1458–1468. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	DeLeo MJ III, Domchek SM, Kontos D, Conant E, Chen J and Weinstein S: Breast MRI fibroglandular volume and parenchymal enhancement in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers before and immediately after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 204:669–673. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Rudat V, Nour A, Almuraikhi N, Ghoniemy I, Brune-Erber I, Almasri N and El-Maghraby T: MRI and ultrasonography for assessing multifocal disease and tumor size in breast cancer: Comparison with histopathological results. Gulf J Oncol. 1:65–72. 2015.
19	Partridge SC, Nissan N, Rahbar H, Kitsch AE and Sigmund EE: Diffusion-weighted breast MRI: Clinical applications and emerging techniques. J Magn Reson Imaging. 45:337–355. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI