Abstract
Objective
The Oncotype DX (ODX) estimates the 10-year risk of metastasis or recurrence of breast cancer and indicates whether chemotherapy is likely to be effective; however, the high cost of this test may limit its use for patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential of preoperative imaging using mammography (MMG), ultrasonography (US), and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI), and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) metabolic parameters in predicting the ODX recurrence score (ODXRS), which prognosticates estrogen receptor-positive (ER +)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) breast cancer.
Methods
This retrospective study was conducted on 51 patients with ER+/ HER2− early-stage breast cancer with preoperative images available. Surgical specimens were sent for ODX assay and the ODXRS was categorized as low (<18) or intermediate/high (≥18). MMG/US findings were classified according to BI-RADS categories. For MRI analysis, tumor growth orientation was evaluated in addition to morphological assessment in BI-RADS. For PET/CT analysis, standardized uptake value (SUV) of the tumor were measured. Patient, tumor, and image characteristics were compared between the two groups, and predictors of the low ODXRS group were determined by logistic regression analysis. Two-sided P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
Results
Thirty-two (63%) and 19 (37%) patients were categorized as low and intermediate/high ODXRS, respectively. On univariate analysis, nuclear grade, tumor margin, and tumor growth orientation on MRI, and SUVmax on PET/CT were significantly associated with a low ODXRS. Multivariate analysis revealed that tumor growth orientation perpendicular to the Cooper’s ligament on MRI (P = 0.031) and a low SUVmax on PET/CT (P = 0.016) were independent prognostic factors for a low ODXRS. As a predictor of low ODXRS, the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of the SUVmax showed that using 3.0 as the optimal cut-off value has a sensitivity and specificity of 94.4% and 73.0%, respectively, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.923.
Conclusions
The combination of perpendicular tumor growth orientation to Cooper’s ligaments on MRI and a low SUVmax on PET/CT may predict a low ODXRS.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Boyages J, Taylor R, Chua B, Ung O, Bilous M, Salisbury E, et al. A risk index for early node-negative breast cancer. Br J Surg. 2006;93(5):564–71.
Hayes DF, Isaacs C, Stearns V. Prognostic factors in breast cancer: current and new predictors of metastasis. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 2001;6(4):375–92.
Albain KS, Barlow WE, Shak S, Hortobagyi GN, Livingston RB, Yeh IT, et al. Prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in postmenopausal women with node-positive, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer on chemotherapy: a retrospective analysis of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(1):55–65.
Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF, Pritchard KI, Albain KS, Hayes DF, et al. Prospective validation of a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(21):2005–14.
Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, Kim C, Baker J, Cronin M, et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(27):2817–26.
Carlson RW, Allred DC, Anderson BO, Burstein HJ, Carter WB, Edge SB, et al. Breast cancer. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Net. 2009;7(2):122–92.
Sparano JA, Paik S. Development of the 21-gene assay and its application in clinical practice and clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(5):721–8.
Asad J, Jacobson AF, Estabrook A, Smith SR, Boolbol SK, Feldman SM, et al. Does oncotype DX recurrence score affect the management of patients with early-stage breast cancer? Am J Surg. 2008;196(4):527–9.
Harris LN, Ismaila N, McShane LM, Andre F, Collyar DE, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, et al. Use of biomarkers to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic therapy for women with early-stage invasive breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(10):1134–50.
Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Thurlimann B, Senn HJ, et al. Strategies for subtypes dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(8):1736–47.
Esserman L, Hylton N, Yassa L, Barclay J, Frankel S, Sickles E. Utility of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of breast cancer: evidence for improved preoperative staging. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(1):110–9.
Kim JY, Cho N, Koo HR, Yi A, Kim WH, Lee SH, et al. Unilateral breast cancer: screening of contralateral breast by using preoperative MR imaging reduces incidence of metachronous cancer. Radiology. 2013;267(1):57–66.
Riegger C, Herrmann J, Nagarajah J, Hecktor J, Kuemmel S, Otterbach F, et al. Whole-body FDG PET/CT is more accurate than conventional imaging for staging primary breast cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39(5):852–63.
Goldhirsch A, Ingle JN, Gelber RD, Coates AS, Thurlimann B, Senn HJ, et al. Thresholds for therapies: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2009. Ann Oncol. 2009;20(8):1319–29.
Tsukada H, Tsukada J, Schrading S, Strobel K, Okamoto T, Kuhl CK. Accuracy of multi-parametric breast MR imaging for predicting pathological complete response of operable breast cancer prior to neoadjuvant systemic therapy. Magn Reson Imaging. 2019;62:242–8.
Oliveira TM, Brasileiro Sant’Anna TK, Mauad FM, Elias J Jr, Muglia VF. Breast imaging: is the sonographic descriptor of orientation valid for magnetic resonance imaging? J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;36(6):1383–8.
Landis JR, Koch GG. An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics. 1977;33(2):363–74.
Saha A, Harowicz MR, Wang W, Mazurowski MA. A study of association of oncotype DX recurrence score with DCE-MRI characteristics using multivariate machine learning models. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2018;144(5):799–807.
Li H, Zhu Y, Burnside ES, Drukker K, Hoadley KA, Fan C, et al. MR Imaging radiomics signatures for predicting the risk of breast cancer recurrence as given by research versions of mammaprint, oncotype DX, and PAM50 Gene Assays. Radiology. 2016;281(2):382–91.
Rawashdeh M, Lewis S, Zaitoun M, Brennan P. Breast lesion shape and margin evaluation: BI-RADS based metrics understate radiologists’ actual levels of agreement. Comput Biol Med. 2018;96:294–8.
El Khoury M, Lalonde L, David J, Labelle M, Mesurolle B, Trop I. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) lexicon for breast MRI: interobserver variability in the description and assignment of BI-RADS category. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84(1):71–6.
Elverici E, Zengin B, Nurdan Barca A, Didem Yilmaz P, Alimli A, Araz L. Interobserver and intraobserver agreement of sonographic BIRADS Lexicon in the assessment of breast masses. Iran J Radiol. 2013;10(3):122–7.
Koo HR, Park JS, Kang KW, Han W, Park IA, Moon WK. Correlation between (18)F-FDG uptake on PET/CT and prognostic factors in triple-negative breast cancer. Eur Radiol. 2015;25(11):3314–21.
Shimoda W, Hayashi M, Murakami K, Oyama T, Sunagawa M. The relationship between FDG uptake in PET scans and biological behavior in breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2007;14(3):260–8.
Lee SH, Ha S, An HJ, Lee JS, Han W, Im SA, et al. Association between partial-volume corrected SUVmax and Oncotype DX recurrence score in early-stage, ER-positive/HER2-negative invasive breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43(9):1574–84.
Cysouw MCF, Kramer GM, Schoonmade LJ, Boellaard R, de Vet HCW, Hoekstra OS. Impact of partial-volume correction in oncological PET studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(12):2105–16.
Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF, Pritchard KI, Albain KS, Hayes DF, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy guided by a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(2):111–21.
Woodard GA, Ray KM, Joe BN, Price ER. Qualitative Radiogenomics: Association between Oncotype DX Test Recurrence Score and BI-RADS mammographic and breast MR imaging features. Radiology. 2018;286(1):60–70.
Yepes MM, Romilly AP, Collado-Mesa F, Net JM, Kiszonas R, Arheart KL, et al. Can mammographic and sonographic imaging features predict the Oncotype DX recurrence score in T1 and T2, hormone receptor positive, HER2 negative and axillary lymph node negative breast cancers? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;148(1):117–23.
Chae EY, Moon WK, Kim HH, Kim WH, Cha JH, Shin HJ, et al. Association between ultrasound features and the 21-Gene recurrence score assays in patients with oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, invasive breast cancer. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(6): e0158461.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Editage (www.editage.com) for English language editing.
Funding
No funding was received for this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tsukada, H., Tsukada, J., Ochi, T. et al. Radiological predictive factors on preoperative multimodality imaging are related to Oncotype DX recurrence score in estrogen-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative invasive breast cancer: a cross-sectional study. Ann Nucl Med 36, 853–864 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-022-01767-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12149-022-01767-z