Meme kanserinde strain elastografi ile histopatolojik parametreler arasındaki ilişki

Year 2022, Volume: 47 Issue: 4, 1663 - 1669, 28.12.2022

Mahmut Çoraplı , Hacı Taner Bulut , Ayşe Gül Örmeci , Hüseyin Alakuş

https://doi.org/10.17826/cumj.1131781

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı strain elastografinin invaziv meme kanserinde immünhistokimyasal, histolojik grade ve moleküler subtiplendirmeyle ilişkisini değerlendirmektir
Gereç ve Yöntem: Neadjuvan tedavi almamış meme koruyucu cerrahi geçirmiş 171 hastanın (yaş ortalaması 46.871 ± 11.949 yıl) elastosonografi indeksi değerleri ile progesteron reseptörü, östrojen reseptörü, insan epidermal büyüme faktörü reseptörü 2, Ki-67, histolojik grade ve moleküler subtipi arasındaki ilişki değerlendirildi. Elastografi indeksini değerlendirmek için strain elastosonografisi kullanıldı.
Bulgular: Hastaların yaş ortalaması 46.871 ± 11.949 yıldı. östrojen reseptörü-pozitif, progesteron reseptörü-pozitif ve insan epidermal büyüme faktörü (HER-2)reseptörü 2 pozitif hasta sayısı sırasıyla 135, 129 ve 90 olarak bulundu. 47 hastanın histolojik derecesi en kötüydü. Moleküler alt tiplendirmeye göre 25 (%14,5), 29 (%17,0), 109 (%63,7) ve 8 (%4,7) hasta sırayla HER-2-pozitif, luminal A, luminal B ve triple negatif olarak sınıflandırıldı. Bu meme rezeksiyonu vakaları arasında elastografi indeks değerleri ile östrojen reseptörü, progesteron reseptörü, insan epidermal büyüme faktörü reseptörü 2, Ki-67, histolojik derece veya moleküler alt tip arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir korelasyon yoktu.
Sonuç:. Elastografi indeksi değeri belirtilen histopatolojik parametreleri ön görmede yetersizdir.

Keywords

Sonoelastografi, meme, malignite, histopatoloji

Relationship between strain elastography and histopathological parameters in breast cancer

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between strain elastography and immunohistochemical markers, the histologic grade, and molecular subtyping in invasive breast cancer.
Materials and Methods: The relationships between the elastography index values and progesterone receptor, estrogen receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, Ki-67, the histologic grade, and molecular subtype in 171 patients who had not received neoadjuvant treatment and underwent breast-conserving surgery were evaluated. Strain elastosonography were used to evaluate elastography index.
Results: The mean patient age was 46.871 ± 11.949 years. There were 135, 129, and 90 estrogen receptor-positive, progesterone receptor-positive, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive patients, respectively. Forty-seven patients had the worst histological grade. Based on molecular subtyping, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive, luminal A, luminal B, and triple-negative classifications were made for 25 (14.5%), 29 (17.0%), 109 (63.7%), and 8 (4.7%) cases, respectively. There was no statistically significant correlation between the elastography index values and estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, Ki-67, histologic grade, or molecular subtype among these breast resection cases.
Conclusion: The elastography index value was insufficient to predict the specified histopathological parameters.

Keywords

Sonoelastography, breast, malignancy, histopathology

References

• Greenlee RT, Murray T, Bolden S, Wingo PA. Cancer statistics, 2000. CA Cancer J Clin. 2000; 50(1):7-33.
• Itoh A, Ueno E, Tohno E, Kamma H, Takahashi H, Shiina T et al. Breast disease: clinical application of US elastography for diagnosis. Radiology. 2006; 239(2): 341-350.
• Hiltawsky KM, Krüger M, Starke C, Heuser L, Ermert H, Jensen et al. Freehand ultrasound elastography of breast lesions: clinical results. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2001; 27(11): 1461-1469.
• Cho DH, Park CS, Kim SH, Kim HS, Kim K, Lee JW et al. Correlation of the strain elastography-derived elasticity scores with prognostic histologic features, immunohistochemical markers, and molecular subtypes of invasive ductal carcinoma. Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology. 2019; 80(4): 717-727.
• Parajuly SS, Lan PY, Yan L, Gang YZ, Lin L. Breast elastography: a hospital-based preliminary study in China. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2010; 11(3): 809-14.
• Leong LCH, Sim LSJ, Lee YS, Ng FC, Wan CM, Fook-Chong SMC et al. A prospective study to compare the diagnostic performance of breast elastography versus conventional breast ultrasound. Clin Radiol. 2010; 65(11): 887-894.
• Balleyguier C, Canale S, Hassen WB, Vielh P, Bayou EH, Mathieu MC et al. Breast elasticity: principles, technique, results: an update and overview of commercially available software. Eur J Radiol. 2010; 82(3): 427-434.
• Garra BS. Imaging and estimation of tissue elasticity by ultrasound. Ultrasound Q. 2007; 23(4): 255-268.
• Sarvazyan AP, Skovoroda AR, Emelianov SY, Fowlkes JB, Pipe JG, Adler RS et al. Biophysical bases of elasticity imaging. In Acoustical imaging. 1995; 223-240.
• Yerli H, Yilmaz T, Kaskati T, Gulay H. Qualitative and semiquantitative evaluations of solid breast lesions by sonoelastography. J Med Ultrasound. 2011; 30(2): 179-186.
• Cho N. Molecular subtypes and imaging phenotypes of breast cancer. Ultrasonography. 2016; 35(4): 281.
• Gu J, Polley EC, Boughey JC, Fazzio RT, Fatemi M, Alizad A. Prediction of Invasive Breast Cancer Using Mass Characteristic Frequency and Elasticity in Correlation with Prognostic Histologic Features and Immunohistochemical Biomarkers. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2021; 47(8): 2193-2201.
• Tang P, Skinner KA, Hicks DG. Molecular classification of breast carcinomas by immunohistochemical analysis: are we ready?. Diagn Mol Pathol. 2009; 18(3): 125-132.
• Tamaki K, Tamaki N, Kamada Y, Uehara K, Miyashita M, Ishida T. A non-invasive modality: the US virtual touch tissue quantification (VTTQ) for evaluation of breast cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2013; 43(9): 889-895.
• Cobleigh MA, Vogel CL, Tripathy D, Robert NJ, Scholl S, Fehrenbacher L. Multinational study of the efficacy and safety of humanized anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody in women who have HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer that has progressed after chemotherapy for metastatic disease. J Clin Oncol. 1999; 17(9): 2639-2639.
• Harbeck N, Wuerstlein R. Truly personalized therapy—An end to the era of one size fits all. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2019; 16(2): 77-78.
• Chang JM, Won JK, Lee KB, Park IA, Yi A, Moon WK. Comparison of shear-wave and strain ultrasound elastography in the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions. Am J Roentgenol. 2013; 201(2): 347-356.
• Kim JY, Shin JK, Lee SH. The breast tumor strain ratio is a predictive parameter for axillary lymph node metastasis in patients with invasive breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol. 2015; 205(6): 630-638.
• Li Z, Tian J, Wang X, Wang Y, Wang Z, Zhang L et al. Differences in multi-modal ultrasound imaging between triple negative and non-triple negative breast cancer. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2016; 42(4): 882-890.
• Hayashi M, Yamamoto Y, Ibusuki M, Fujiwara S, Yamamoto S, Tomita S et al. Evaluation of tumor stiffness by elastography is predictive for pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012; 19(9): 3042-3049.
• Ma Y, Zhang S, Li J, Li J, Kang Y, Ren W. Comparison of strain and shear-wave ultrasounic elastography in predicting the pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancers. Eur Radiol. 2017; 27(6): 2282-2291.
• Gemici AA, Ozal ST, Hocaoglu E, Inci E. Relationship between shear wave elastography findings and histologic prognostic factors of invasive breast cancer. Ultrasound Q. 2020; 36(1): 79-83.
• Kim H, Lee J, Kang BJ, Kim SH. What shear wave elastography parameter best differentiates breast cancer and predicts its histologic aggressiveness?. Ultrasonography. 2021; 40(2): 265.