International Journal of Scientific Research in Dental and Medical Sciences

International Journal of Scientific Research in Dental and Medical Sciences

Association of Multimodality Imaging Features with Breast Cancer Molecular Subtypes

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Kiran Yadav 1
Sushila Yadav 2
Rajesh Yadav 3
Kavita Yadav 4
1 Department of Radiodiagnosis, RNT Medical College, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India
2 Independent Researcher, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
3 Department of General Medicine, Government Medical College, Kota, Rajasthan, India
4 Independent Researcher, Jhalawar Medical College, Jhalawar, Rajasthan, India
10.30485/ijsrdms.2026.593451.1711
Abstract
Background and aim: Breast cancer comprises distinct molecular subtypes with different biological characteristics and treatment responses. This study evaluated the association between multimodality imaging features and immunohistochemically defined breast cancer molecular subtypes.
Material and methods: This cross-sectional observational study included 50 women with histopathologically confirmed breast cancer who underwent mammography, ultrasonography (USG), and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) between October 2023 and December 2024. We assessed imaging features and correlated them with molecular subtypes. We evaluated associations using contingency tests and univariate logistic regression, and assessed diagnostic performance using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.
Results: The mean age was 51.56 ± 10.3 years. Luminal A was the most frequent subtype (30%), followed by Luminal B (28%). Mammographic calcifications were more frequent in HER2-enriched tumors but were not significantly associated with this subtype (OR: 3.33, 95% CI: 0.62–18.0, p=0.162). Posterior acoustic enhancement was significantly associated with TNBC (OR: 20.9, 95% CI: 10.5–415, p<0.001; AUC=0.88), as was a circumscribed margin (OR: 18.75, 95% CI: 3.46–101.6, p<0.001; AUC=0.86). Posterior acoustic shadowing was associated with Luminal A (OR: 5.33, 95% CI: 1.27–22.32, p=0.035; AUC=0.69).
Conclusions: Selected imaging features were associated with specific breast cancer molecular subtypes. Larger multicenter studies with integrated and validated predictive models are needed to confirm these findings.
Keywords
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Triple Negative Breast Neoplasms
Ultrasonography
Subjects
[1] Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. 2023;73(1):17. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21763
[2] Shah S. Latest Statistics of Breast Cancer in India. Breast Cancer India. http://www. breastcancerindia. net/statistics/trends. html. Accessed. 2020.
[3] Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. 2024;74(3):229-63. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21834.
[4] Coates AS, Winer EP, Goldhirsch A, Gelber RD, Gnant M, Piccart-Gebhart M, et al. Tailoring therapies improving the management of early breast cancer: St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2015. Annals of oncology. 2015;26(8):1533-46. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdv221.
[5] Malvia S, Bagadi SA, Dubey US, Saxena S. Epidemiology of breast cancer in Indian women. Asia‐Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2017;13(4):289-95. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajco.12661.
[6] Azhar F, Fatima T, Aqsa T, Qureshi U, Rasheed G, Khan JS. Pattern of breast cancer presentation. Journal of Rawalpindi Medical College. 2017;21(1).
[7] Sickles EA, D’Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, Appleton CM, Berg WA, Burnside ES. Acr bi-rads® mammography. ACR BI-RADS® atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system. 2013;5:2013.
[8] Dogan BE, Turnbull LW. Imaging of triple-negative breast cancer. Annals of Oncology. 2012;23:vi23-9.
[9] Chen IE, Lee-Felker S. Triple-negative breast cancer: multimodality appearance. Current Radiology Reports. 2023;11(4):53-9.
[10] Xie T, Zhao Q, Fu C, Bai Q, Zhou X, Li L, et al. Differentiation of triple-negative breast cancer from other subtypes through whole-tumor histogram analysis on multiparametric MR imaging. European radiology. 2019;29(5):2535-44.
[11] Dogan BE, Turnbull LW. Imaging of triple-negative breast cancer. Annals of Oncology. 2012;23:vi23-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mds191.
[12] Luo Z, Hu J, Kong D, Song J, Li Z, Chen C. Mammographic microcalcifications as a predictor of neoadjuvant efficacy across different breast cancer molecular subtypes. Asian Journal of Surgery. 2025;48(5):2902-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asjsur.2024.12.023.
[13] Rana N, Thakur S, Thakur V, Chauhan A, Gulati A, Makhaik S. Mammographic parameters as predictors of molecular subtype of breast cancer: a prospective analysis. Surgical and Experimental Pathology. 2024;7(1):22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42047-024-00169-x.
[14] Rashmi S, Kamala S, Murthy SS, Kotha S, Rao YS, Chaudhary KV. Predicting the molecular subtype of breast cancer based on mammography and ultrasound findings. Indian Journal of Radiology and imaging. 2018;28(03):354-61. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijri.IJRI_78_18.
International Journal of Scientific Research in Dental and Medical Sciences
Volume 8, Issue 1
Winter 2026
Pages 25-32

  • Receive Date 09 January 2026
  • Revise Date 21 February 2026
  • Accept Date 01 March 2026
  • Publish Date 01 March 2026