Share：
Share this content in WeChat
X
[Chinese][PDF]31411
• Special Focus •
Diagnostic value of MRI features combined with clinicopathologic features in predicting the expression of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 in breast cancer
SHEN Yiyuan  YOU Chao  LIN Luyi  ZHOU Jiayin  GU Yajia 

Cite this article as: SHEN Y Y, YOU C, LIN L Y, et al. Diagnostic value of MRI features combined with clinicopathologic features in predicting the expression of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 in breast cancer[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2024, 15(1): 6-13. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2024.01.002.


[Abstract] Objective To explore the value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features combined with clinicopathologic features in distinguishing human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2) expression status, especially in HER-2-low breast cancer.Materials and Methods The pre-treatment breast MRI images of 205 patients with pathologically confirmed breast cancer from January 2018 to December 2019 at Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center were retrospectively analyzed. All patients underwent a bilateral breast scan and a dynamic contrast enhancement MRI. HER-2 status was categorized into HER-2 negative (including HER-2-zero and HER-2-low) and HER-2 positive based on immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization results. Clinicopathologic features and MRI features were analyzed in each group. Clinicopathologic features included age, menstrual status, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), hormone receptor (HR), molecular subtypes and Ki-67 level. MRI features included fibroglandular tissue, background parenchymal enhancement, multifocal or multicentric, intratumoral T2WI high signal, peritumoral edema, lesion type, lesion size, shape, margin and internal enhancement pattern of the mass, and distribution and internal enhancement pattern of non-mass enhancement. In the univariate analysis, for the comparison between HER-2 negative and positive groups, an independent sample t-test was used for age, a Mann-Whitney U test was used for lesion size, and a χ2 test was used for the remaining clinicopathologic and MRI features. For the comparison of HER-2 zero, low, and overexpression groups, a one-way analysis of variance was used for age, a Kruskal-Wallis H test was used for lesion size, and a χ2 test was used for the remaining clinicopathologic and MRI features. Multifactorial analysis was performed by binary logistic regression analysis, and the diagnostic efficacy of the model was evaluated by area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity of the receiver operating characteristic.Results There were 67 HER-2-positive (HER-2-overexpression), 59 HER-2-zero and 79 HER-2-low cases. Between the HER-2-negative and positive group, the difference in clinicopathologic features of ER, PR, HR, and molecular typing were statistically significant (all P<0.001), and the differences in the margin of the mass in MRI features were statistically significant (P=0.020). Further comparing the HER-2 low with HER-2-zero group or HER-2-overexpression group, the differences in clinicopathologic features were statistically significant in ER, PR, HR, molecular subtypes, and Ki-67 levels (with a cutoff value of 40% of the median) between HER-2-low and HER-2-zero or HER-2-overexpression group (ER, PR, HR, and molecular subtypes: all P<0.001; Ki-67: P<0.001, P= 0.037); among the MRI features, the differences in the intratumoral T2WI hyperintensity and mass shape were statistically significant between HER-2-low and HER-2-zero or HER-2-overexpression group (intratumoral T2WI hyperintensity: P=0.031, P=0.011; mass shape: P=0.012, P=0.025), and the difference in the mass margin was statistically significant between HER-2-zero and HER-2-low group (P=0.036). In the multifactorial analysis combining clinicopathologic and MRI features, PR status, Ki-67 and mass shape were independent predictors to distinguish HER-2-low and -zero expression, with an AUC, sensitivity, and specificity of 0.772, 79.7%, and 70.9%, respectively; and PR status and intratumoral T2WI hyperintensity were independent predictors to distinguish HER-2-low versus -overexpression, with an AUC, sensitivity, and specificity of 0.793, 69.8% and 76.1%, respectively.Conclusions MRI features have a differential diagnostic value for HER-2 expression status in breast cancer, especially in distinguishing HER-2 low-expression and HER-2-zero or -overexpression status. Combining clinicopathologic features and MRI features, PR positivity, Ki-67 lower than 40%, irregular mass shape, and intratumoral T2WI hyperintensity can indicate HER-2 low-expression breast cancer.
[Keywords] breast cancer；human epidermal growth factor receptor 2；magnetic resonance imaging；differential diagnosis；low expression；targeted therapy

SHEN Yiyuan1, 2   YOU Chao1, 2   LIN Luyi1, 2   ZHOU Jiayin1, 2   GU Yajia1, 2*  

1 Department of Radiology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai 200032, China

2 Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China

Corresponding author: GU Y J, E-mail: guyajia@126.com

Conflicts of interest   None.

Received  2023-10-07
Accepted  2023-12-29
DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2024.01.002
Cite this article as: SHEN Y Y, YOU C, LIN L Y, et al. Diagnostic value of MRI features combined with clinicopathologic features in predicting the expression of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 in breast cancer[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2024, 15(1): 6-13. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2024.01.002.

[1]
SUNG H, FERLAY J, SIEGEL R L, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2021, 71(3): 209-249. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21660.
[2]
WULFKUHLE J D, BERG D, WOLFF C, et al. Molecular analysis of HER2 signaling in human breast cancer by functional protein pathway activation mapping[J]. Clin Cancer Res, 2012, 18(23): 6426-6435. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-0452.
[3]
MARCHIO C, ANNARATONE L, MARQUES A, et al. Evolving concepts in HER2 evaluation in breast cancer: Heterogeneity, HER2-low carcinomas and beyond[J/OL]. Semin Cancer Biol. 2021, 72: 123-135 [2023-02-16]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32112814/. DOI: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2020.02.016.
[4]
HAMILTON E, SHASTRY M, SHILLER S M, et al. Targeting HER2 heterogeneity in breast cancer[J/OL]. Cancer Treat Rev, 2021, 100: 102286 [2023-09-20]. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305737221001341?via%3Dihub. DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2021.102286.
[5]
DIECI M V, MIGLIETTA F. HER2: a never ending story[J]. Lancet Oncol, 2021, 22(8): 1051-1052. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00349-1.
[6]
ZHANG G, REN C, LI C, et al. Distinct clinical and somatic mutational features of breast tumors with high-, low-, or non-expressing human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status[J/OL]. BMC Med, 2022, 20 (1): 142 [2023-04-29]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35484593. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-022-02346-9.
[7]
DAI L J, MA D, XU Y Z, et al. Molecular features and clinical implications of the heterogeneity in Chinese patients with HER2-low breast cancer [J/OL]. Nat Commun, 2023, 14 (1): 5112 [2023-08-22]. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-40715-x. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-023-40715-x.
[8]
ZHU S J, LU Y J, FEI X C, et al. Pathological complete response, category change, and prognostic significance of HER2-low breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant treatment: a multicenter analysis of 2489 cases[J]. Br J Cancer, 2023, 129(8): 1274-1283. DOI: 10.1038/s41416-023-02403-x.
[9]
CHEN R X, QI Y N, HUANG Y, et al. Diagnostic value of core needle biopsy for determining HER2 status in breast cancer, especially in the HER2-low population[J]. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2023, 197(1): 189-200. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-022-06781-3.
[10]
WOLFF A C, HAMMOND M E H, ALLISON K H, et al. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American society of clinical oncology/college of American pathologists clinical practice guideline focused update[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2018, 36(20): 2105-2122. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2018.77.8738.
[11]
MANN R M, KUHL C K, KINKEL K, et al. Breast MRI: guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging[J]. Eur Radiol, 2008, 18(7): 1307-1318. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-008-0863-7.
[12]
MALHAIRE C, SELHANE F, SAINT-MARTIN M J, et al. Exploring the added value of pretherapeutic MR descriptors in predicting breast cancer pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy[J/OL]. Eur Radiol, 2023 [2023-09-20]. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00330-023-09797-5. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-023-09797-5.
[13]
MANN R M, CHO N, MOY L. Breast MRI: state of the art[J]. Radiology, 2019, 292(3): 520-536. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019182947.
[14]
DAI T, SU T, WANG R, et al. Predictive value of DCE-MRI features of breast cancer on hormone receptor, HER-2 and triple negative breast cancer[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imag, 2023, 14(4): 57-67. DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2023.04.011.
[15]
LI Q, HUANG Y, YANG M, et al. The histogram features of quantitative parameters from synthetic MRI in predicting the expression of human epithelial growth factor receptor 2 in breast invasive ductual carcinoma[J]. Chin J Radiol, 2021, 55(12): 1294-1300. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112149-20210620-00584.
[16]
LI Z L, CHEN J M, GAO J, et al. Value of MRI image omics model in preoperative prediction of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 expression in breast cancer[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imag, 2023, 14(4): 82-88. DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2023.04.014.
[17]
ZHANG C X, HE J X, YU M, et al. Correlation study of imaging features of DCE-MRI and HER2 status in patient with breast carcinoma[J]. Chin J CT MRI, 2023, 21(1): 92-94, 183. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-5131.2023.01.031.
[18]
ZHANG C M, DING Z M, CHEN P, et al. Prediction of HER-2 expression in breast cancer patients based on DCE-MRI intratumor and peritumoral imaging combined with TIC typing and Ki-67[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imag, 2023, 14(4): 68-75. DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2023.04.012.
[19]
MAO C, HU L, JIANG W, et al. Discrimination between human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-low-expressing and HER2-overexpressing breast cancers: a comparative study of four MRI diffusion models[J/OL]. Eur Radiol, 2023 [2023-09-20]. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00330-023-10198-x. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-023-10198-x.
[20]
BIAN X Q, DU S Y, YUE Z B, et al. Potential antihuman epidermal growth factor receptor 2 target therapy beneficiaries: the role of MRI-based radiomics in distinguishing human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-low status of breast cancer[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2023, 58(5): 1603-1614. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.28628.
[21]
GUO Y, XIE X, TANG W, et al. Noninvasive identification of HER2-low-positive status by MRI-based deep learning radiomics predicts the disease-free survival of patients with breast cancer[J/OL]. Eur Radiol, 2023 [2023-09-20]. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00330-023-09990-6. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-023-09990-6.
[22]
RAMTOHUL T, DJERROUDI L, LISSAVALID E, et al. Multiparametric MRI and radiomics for the prediction of HER2-zero, -low, and-positive breast cancers[J/OL]. Radiology, 2023, 308(2): e222646 [2023-08-01]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37526540/. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.222646.
[23]
YOU C, LI J, ZHI W, et al. The volumetric-tumour histogram-based analysis of intravoxel incoherent motion and non-Gaussian diffusion MRI: association with prognostic factors in HER2-positive breast cancer[J/OL]. Journal of translational medicine, 2019, 17 (1): 182 [2023-07-02]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6604303/. DOI: 10.1186/s12967-019-1911-6.
[24]
ELIAS S G, ADAMS A, WISNER D J, et al. Imaging features of HER2 overexpression in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 2014, 23(8): 1464-1483. DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-1170.
[25]
WANG T T, ZHOU J, TIAN N, et al. Correlation of mammography, MRI features and molecular typing of breast cancer[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imag, 2019, 10(6): 420-424. DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2019.06.005.
[26]
YOON G Y, CHAE E Y, CHA J H, et al. Imaging and clinicopathologic features associated with pathologic complete response in HER2-positive breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy with dual HER2 blockade[J]. Clin Breast Cancer, 2020, 20(1): 25-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2019.06.015.
[27]
MUMIN N A, RAMLI HAMID M T, WONG J H D, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging phenotypes of breast cancer molecular subtypes: a systematic review[J/OL]. Acad Radiol, 2022, 29(Suppl 1): S89-S106 [2023-09-02]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34481705/. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2021.07.017.
[28]
BAE, SHIN S U, RYU H S, et al. Pretreatment MR imaging features of triple-negative breast cancer: association with response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and recurrence-free survival[J]. Radiology, 2016, 281(2): 392-400. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2016152331.
[29]
SZEP M, PINTICAN R, BOCA B, et al. Multiparametric MRI Features of Breast Cancer Molecular Subtypes[J/OL]. Medicina (Kaunas), 2022, 58 (12): 1716 [2022-11-23]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9785392/. DOI: 10.3390/medicina58121716.
[30]
MOFFA G, GALATI F, COLLALUNGA E, et al. Can MRI Biomarkers Predict Triple-Negative Breast Cancer?[J/OL]. 2020, 10 (12): 1090 [2022-12-15]. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/10/12/1090 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics10121090.
[31]
CHEN P P, ZHAO S H, GUO W H, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging features and apparent diffusion coefficient value of HER2-positive/HR-negative breast carcinoma[J]. Quant Imaging Med Surg, 2023, 13(8): 4816-4825. DOI: 10.21037/qims-22-1318.
[32]
UEMATSU T, KASAMI M, YUEN S. Triple-negative breast cancer: correlation between MR imaging and pathologic findings[J]. Radiology, 2009, 250(3): 638-647. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2503081054.
[33]
HUANG J L, LIN Q, CUI C X, et al. Correlation between imaging features and molecular subtypes of breast cancer in young women (≤30 years old)[J]. Jpn J Radiol, 2020, 38(11): 1062-1074. DOI: 10.1007/s11604-020-01001-8.
[34]
ANGELINI G, MARINI C, IACCONI C, et al. Magnetic resonance (MR) features in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) vs receptor positive cancer (nTNBC)[J/OL]. Clin Imaging, 2018, 49: 12-16 [2023-10-06]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29120811/. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2017.10.016.
[35]
SEYFETTIN A, DEDE I, HAKVERDI S, et al. MR imaging properties of breast cancer molecular subtypes[J]. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci, 2022, 26(11): 3840-3848. DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202206_28951.
[36]
BOISSERIE-LACROIX M, HURTEVENT-LABROT G, FERRON S, et al. Correlation between imaging and molecular classification of breast cancers[J]. Diagn Interv Imaging, 2013, 94(11): 1069-1080. DOI: 10.1016/j.diii.2013.04.010.
[37]
GWEON H M, JEONG J, SON E J, et al. The clinical significance of accompanying NME on preoperative MR imaging in breast cancer patients[J/OL]. PLoS One, 2017, 12(5): e0178445 [2023-05-30]. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0178445. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178445.
[38]
KOH J, PARK A Y, KO K H, et al. Can enhancement types on preoperative MRI reflect prognostic factors and surgical outcomes in invasive breast cancer?[J]. Eur Radiol, 2019, 29(12): 7000-7008. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-019-06236-2.
[39]
GIGLI S, AMABILE M I, DAVID E, et al. Morphological and semiquantitative kinetic analysis on dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in triple negative breast cancer patients[J]. Acad Radiol, 2019, 26(5): 620-625. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2018.06.014.
[40]
GALATI F, RIZZO V, MOFFA G, et al. Radiologic-pathologic correlation in breast cancer: do MRI biomarkers correlate with pathologic features and molecular subtypes?[J/OL]. Eur Radiol Exp, 2022, 6 (1): 39 [2023-08-08]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9357588/. DOI: 10.1186/s41747-022-00289-7.

PREV MRI quantitative analysis technology: An important tool for the precise diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer
NEXT Application value of IDEAL-IQ sequence in differential diagnosis of benign and malignant breast masses
  


LINK


Tel & Fax: +8610-67113815    E-mail: editor@cjmri.cn