Abstract
Little is known about the MR imaging features of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), but TNBC has a worse prognosis because it has no effective therapeutic targets, such as estrogen receptor for endocrine therapy and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) for anti-HER2 therapy. MR findings of a unifocal lesion, mass lesion type, smooth mass margin, rim heterogeneous enhancement, persistent enhancement pattern, and very high signal intensity on T2-weighted images are typical features of breast MR imaging associated with TNBC. Although TNBC can mimic a benign morphology, the early MR imaging recognition of TNBC could assist in both the pretreatment planning and the prognosis, as well as adding to our understanding of the biological behavior of TNBC.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Gluz O, Liedtke C, Gottschalk N, Pusztai L, Nitz U, Harbeck N. Triple-negative breast cancer–current status and future directions. Ann Oncol. 2009;20:1913–27.
Kreike B, van Kouwenhove M, Horlings H, et al. Gene expression profiling and histopathological characterization of triple-negative/basal-like breast carcinomas. Breast Cancer Res. 2007;9:R65.
Rakha EA, Reis-Filho JS, Ellis IO. Basal-like breast cancer: a critical review. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:2568–81.
Kuhl CK. The current status of breast MR imaging. Part 1. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice. Radiology. 2007;244:356–78.
Benndorf M, Baltzer PA, Vag T, Gajda M, Runnebaum IB, Kaiser WA. Breast MRI as an adjunct to mammography: does it really suffer from low specificity? A retrospective analysis stratified by mammographic BI-RADS class. Acta Radiol. 2010;51:715–21.
Okafuji T, Yabuuchi H, Soeda H, et al. Circumscribed mass lesions on mammography: dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging to differentiated malignancy and benignancy. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2008;7:195–204.
Uematsu T, Kasami M, Yuen S. Triple-negative breast cancer: correlation between MR imaging and pathological findings. 2009;250:638–47.
Dogan BE, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Gilcrease M, Dryden MJ, Yang WT. Multimodality imaging of triple receptor-negative tumors with mammography, ultrasound, and MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:1160–6.
Sardnelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B, Decker T, Federico M, Gilbrt FJ, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: Recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46:1296–316.
Chatterji M, Mercado CL, Moy L. Optimizing 1.5-tesla and 3-tesla dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breasts. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2010;18:207–24.
Rausch DR, Hendrick RE. How to optimize clinical breast MR imaging practices and techniques on your 1.5-T system. Radiographics. 2006;26:1469–84.
American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). 4th ed. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2003.
Schrading S, Kuhl CK. Mammographic, US, and MR imaging phenotypes of familial breast cancer. Radiology. 2008;246:58–70.
Teifke A, Behr O, Schmidt M, et al. Dynamic MR imaging of breast lesions: correlation with microvessel distribution pattern and histologic characteristics of prognosis. Radiology. 2006;239:351–60.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Uematsu, T. MR imaging of triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer 18, 161–164 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-010-0236-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-010-0236-3