Background and Objectives: Breast cancer (BC) molecular subtypes have unique incidence, survival and response to therapy. There are five BC subtypes described by immunohistochemistry: luminal A, luminal B HER2 positive and HER2 negative, triple negative (TNBC) and HER2-enriched. Multiparametric breast MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) provides morphological and functional characteristics of breast tumours and is nowadays recommended in the preoperative setting. Aim: To evaluate the multiparametric MRI features (T2-WI, ADC values and DCE) of breast tumours along with breast density and background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) features among different BC molecular subtypes. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective study which included 344 patients. All underwent multiparametric breast MRI (T2WI, ADC and DCE sequences) and features were extracted according to the latest BIRADS lexicon. The inter-reader agreement was assessed using the intraclass coefficient (ICC) between the ROI of ADC obtained from the two breast imagers (experienced and moderately experienced). Results: The study population was divided as follows: 89 (26%) with luminal A, 39 (11.5%) luminal B HER2 positive, 168 (48.5%) luminal B HER2 negative, 41 (12%) triple negative (TNBC) and 7 (2%) with HER2 enriched. Luminal A tumours were associated with special histology type, smallest tumour size and persistent kinetic curve (all p-values < 0.05). Luminal B HER2 negative tumours were associated with lowest ADC value (0.77 × 10−3 mm2/s2), which predicts the BC molecular subtype with an accuracy of 0.583. TNBC were associated with asymmetric and moderate/marked BPE, round/oval masses with circumscribed margins and rim enhancement (all p-values < 0.05). HER2 enriched BC were associated with the largest tumour size (mean 37.28 mm, p-value = 0.02). Conclusions: BC molecular subtypes can be associated with T2WI, ADC and DCE MRI features. ADC can help predict the luminal B HER2 negative cases.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relationship between the pathogenic/likely pathogenic mutations, US features, and histopathologic findings of breast cancer in mutation carriers compared to non-carrier patients. Methods: In this retrospective study, we identified 264 patients with breast cancer and multigene panel testing admitted to our clinic from January 2018 to December 2020. Patient data US findings, US assessment of the axilla, multigene panel tests, histopathology, and immunochemistry reports were reviewed according to the BI-RADS lexicon. Results: The study population was comprised of 40% pathogenic mutation carriers (BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, ATM, PALB, TP 53, NBN, MSH, BRIP 1 genes) and 60% mutation-negative patients. The mean patient age was 43.5 years in the carrier group and 44 years in the negative group. Carrier patients developed breast cancer with benign morphology (acoustic enhancement, soft elastography appearance) compared to non-carriers (p < 0.05). A tendency towards specific US features was observed for each mutation. BRCA1 carriers were associated with BC with microlobulated margins, hyperechoic rim, and soft elastography appearance (p < 0.05). Estrogen receptor (ER)-negative tumors were associated with BRCA1, TP53, and RAD mutations, while BRCA2 and CHEK2 were associated with ER-positive tumors. Conclusions: Patients with pathogenic mutations may exhibit BC with benign US features compared to negative, non-carrier patients. BRCA1, TP53, and RAD carriers account for up to one third of the ER tumors from the carrier group. Axillary US performed worse in depicting involved lymph nodes in carrier patients, compared to negative patients.

There are different breast cancer molecular subtypes with differences in incidence, treatment response and outcome. They are roughly divided into estrogen and progesterone receptor (ER and PR) negative and positive cancers. In this retrospective study, we included 185 patients augmented with 25 SMOTE patients and divided them into two groups: the training group consisted of 150 patients and the validation cohort consisted of 60 patients. Tumors were manually delineated and whole-volume tumor segmentation was used to extract first-order radiomic features. The ADC-based radiomics model reached an AUC of 0.81 in the training cohort and was confirmed in the validation set, which yielded an AUC of 0.93, in differentiating ER/PR positive from ER/PR negative status. We also tested a combined model using radiomics data together with ki67% proliferation index and histological grade, and obtained a higher AUC of 0.93, which was also confirmed in the validation group. In conclusion, whole-volume ADC texture analysis is able to predict hormonal status in breast cancer masses.

Purpose: The aim of this study is to evaluate the role of US in depicting axillary nodal disease in high-risk patients with and without pathogenic mutations. Methods: The retrospective study included consecutive high-risk breast cancer (BC) patients who underwent a multigene testing panel for hereditary cancers, pre-operative axillary US and breast/axillary surgery. The group was divided into patients with pathogenic mutations (PM group) and patients without PM. Statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism by applying Chi-square and Fisher exact tests, with a reference p-value < 0.05 and a CI of 95%. Results: Out of 190 patients with BC, 96 (51%) were negative and 94 (49%) were positive for PM as follows: 28 (25.5%) BRCA1, 16 (17%) BRCA2, 15 (16%) CHECK2, 14 (14%) RAD Group, 7 (7%) PALB, 6 (6%) NBN, 3 (3%) TP53 and ATM and 2 (2%) BARD1. US was positive in 88 of the patients, 36 with PM and 52 without PM. US and surgery (>= N1 stage) were both positive in 31 (62%) of PM patients and 44 (88%) of patients without genetic changes. There were 19 (61%) false negative US examinations in the PM group and 6 (13%) in the group without genetic changes, respectively. If the US is positive, there is a 2.6 times greater risk of positive nodes in PM patients (p-value < 0.000, 95% CI = 4.2–37.9), and a 6.2 times greater risk of positive nodes in patients without genetic changes (p-value < 0.000, 95%CI = 8.4–37.4). In the PM group, US compared to surgery reached a sensitivity = 62, with PPV = 86 and NPV = 67. In the BRCA1/2 subgroup, there is 2.5 greater times risk of nodal disease if the US is positive (p-value = 0.001, 95%CI = 2.6–76). In patients without PM, US compared to surgery reached a sensitivity = 88, PPV = 84 and NPV = 86. Conclusion: US is more sensitive in depicting axillary nodal disease in high-risk patients without PM compared to PM patients. Furthermore, there are more false negative US examinations in PM patients, compared to surgery patients.

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is notorious for its uncommon metastatic location. We present a rare case of goiter as a RCC metastatic site. As case particularities, besides the goiter that made practically impossible the ultrasound diagnosis of the metastasis, this seemed to be correlated with an unexplained high level of alkaline phosphatase (AP). AP persisted from the time of kidney cancer diagnosis, after nephrectomy and reached a normal value only after thyroidectomy. Currently, there are no guidelines to indicate FDG-PET in RCC patients. Thereby, we will present the challenging ultrasound diagnosis together with case management particularities.