Imaging biomarkers are underutilised but highly predictive prognostic factors for the more fatal breast cancer subtypes.

Purpose: The development and refinement of breast imaging modalities offer a wealth of diagnostic information such as imaging biomarkers, which are primarily the mammographic appearance of the various breast cancer subtypes. These are readily available preoperatively at the time of diagnosis and can enhance the prognostic value of currently used molecular biomarkers. In this study, we investigated the relative utility of the molecular and imaging biomarkers, both jointly and independently, when predicting long-term patient outcome according to the site of tumour origin.

Methods: We evaluated the association of imaging biomarkers and conventional molecular biomarkers, (ER, PR, HER-2, Ki67), separately and combined, with long-term patient outcome in all breast cancer cases having complete data on both imaging and molecular biomarkers (n = 2236) diagnosed in our Institute during the period 2008-2019. Large format histopathology technique was used to document intra- and intertumoural heterogeneity and select the appropriate foci for evaluating molecular biomarkers.

Results: The breast cancer imaging biomarkers were strongly predictive of long-term patient outcome. The molecular biomarkers were predictive of outcome only for unifocal acinar adenocarcinoma of the breast (AAB), but less reliable in the multifocal AAB cases due to variability of molecular biomarkers in the individual tumour foci. In breast cancer of mesenchymal origin (BCMO), conventionally termed classic invasive lobular carcinoma, and in cancers originating from the major lactiferous ducts (ductal adenocarcinoma of the breast, DAB), the molecular biomarkers misleadingly indicated favourable prognosis, whereas the imaging biomarkers in BCMO and DAB reliably indicated the high risk of breast cancer death. Among the 2236 breast cancer cases, BCMO and DAB comprised 21% of the breast cancer cases, but accounted for 45% of the breast cancer deaths.

Conclusions: Integration of imaging biomarkers into the diagnostic workup of breast cancer yields a more precise, comprehensive and prognostically accurate diagnostic report. This is particularly necessary in multifocal AAB cases having intertumoural heterogeneity, in diffuse carcinomas (DAB and BCMO), and in cases with combined DAB and AAB. In such cases, the imaging biomarkers should be prioritised over molecular biomarkers in planning treatment because the latter fail to predict the severity of the disease. In combination with the use of the large section histopathology technique, imaging biomarkers help alleviate some of the current problems in breast cancer management, such as over- and under-assessment of disease extent, which carry the risk of overtreatment and undertreatment.