Magnetic resonance imaging as a non-invasive breast cancer tool - the relevance of breast edema score: A retrospective study

doi:10.4329/wjr.v18.i4.119347

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 18, Issue 4

This Article

Google Scholar

Peer-Review Report of This Article

CrossCheck and Google Search of This Article

Academic Rules and Norms of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (0)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, HTML series, Figures (1-5) series, Tables (1-2) series.

Item

Count

PDF

HTML

Figures (1-5)

Tables (1-2)

Sum=24

Publishing Process of This Article

The chart showing Browse series, Download series.

Item

Count

Browse

Download

Sum=3

Apr 28, 2026 (publication date) through Apr 24, 2026

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (0)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Radiology

ISSN

1949-8470

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Retrospective Study

Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license. No commercial re-use. See permissions. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.

World J Radiol. Apr 28, 2026; 18(4): 119347
Published online Apr 28, 2026. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v18.i4.119347

Table 1 Background information about the patients

Variables	Statistics, n (%)	P value
Age	4
Median (interquartile range)	7 (20)
Minimum-maximum	26-80
Age categories
≥ 40 years	29 (23.60)^a
41-60 years	61 (49.60)^b	< 0.001
61-80 years	33 (26.80)^a
Molecular subtype
HER2+	11 (8.90)^a	Luminal B vs luminal A: P = 0.02; all others: P < 0.001
Luminal A	35 (28.50)^b
Luminal B (HER2+)	52 (42.30)^c	Luminal A vs HER2+, luminal B, and triple-negative breast cancer: P < 0.001
Luminal B (HER2-)	9 (7.30)^a
Triple negative (triple-negative breast cancer)	16 (13.00)^a
Histological type
Invasive ductal carcinoma	110 (89.40)^a
Invasive lobular carcinoma	8 (6.50)^b
Medullary carcinoma	2 (1.60)^b
Invasive papillary carcinoma	1 (0.80)^b
Invasive tabular carcinoma	1 (0.80)^b
Mucinous carcinoma	1 (0.80)^b	IDC vs each of the other types: P < 0.001
Tumor grading (G)
Grade I	5 (4.10)^a	GI vs GII: P < 0.001
Grade II	84 (68.30)^b	GI vs GIII: P < 0.001
Grade III	34 (27.60)^c	GII vs GIII: P < 0.001
Estrogen status (estrogen receptor)
Positive (> 1)	96 (78.00)
Negative (0)	27 (22. 00)	< 0.001
Progesteron status (progesterone receptor)
Positive (> 1)	90 (73.20)
Negative (0)	33 (26.80)	< 0.001
Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-receptors
0+	49 (39.80)^a
1+	54 (43.90)^a	< 0.001
3+	20 (16.30)^b
Proliferative Ki67-index
< 20	35 (28.50)
≥ 20	88 (71.50)	< 0.001
Edema
Yes	56 (45.50)
No	67 (54.50)	0.160
BES
BES-1 (no edema)	67 (54.50)^a
BES-2 (peritumoral edema)	37 (30.10)^b
BES-3 (prepectoral edema)	7 (5.70)^c
BES-4 (subcutaneous edema)	12 (9.80)^c	< 0.001
Lymphadenopathy
Yes	70 (56.90)
No	53 (43.10)	0.030

^aP < 0.05.

^bP < 0.01.

^cP < 0.001.

HER2: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; BES: Breast edema score; IDC: Invasive ductal carcinoma.

Full Size Table

Table 2 Comparison of breast edema score categories, n (%)

Variables	BES-1 (n = 67)	BES-2 (n = 37)	BES-3 (n = 7)	BES-4 (n = 12)	P value
Age, median (interquartile range)	47 (20)	50 (21)	44 (29)	54.50 (22)	0.612¹
Molecular subtype
HER2+	2 (3.0)^a	6 (16.2)^a	1 (14.3)^a	2 (16.7)^a
Luminal A	30 (44.8)^a	4 (10.8)^b	1 (14.3)^b	0 (0.0)^b
Luminal B (HER2-)	33 (49.3)^a	14 (37.8)^a	1 (14.3)^b	4 (33.3)^a
Luminal B (HER2+)	1 (1.5)^a	2 (5.4)^a	3 (42.9)^b	3 (25.0)^b
Triple negative	1 (1.5)^a	11 (29.7)^b	3 (42.9)^b	3 (25.0)^b	< 0.001²
Tumor grading (G)
Grade I	2 (3.0)	2 (5.4)	1 (14.3)	0 (0.0)
Grade II	51 (76.1)	22 (59.5)	4 (57.1)	7 (58.3)
Grade III	14 (20.9)	13 (35.1)	2 (29.6)	5 (41.7)	0.326²
Estrogen status (estrogen receptor)
Positive (> 1%)	64 (95.5)^a	20 (54.1)^b	5 (71.4)^a^,^b	7 (58.3)^b
Negative (0%)	3 (4.5)	17 (45.9)	2 (28.6)	5 (41.7)	< 0.001³
Progesteron status (progesterone receptor)
Positive (> 1%)	61 (91.0)^a	18 (48.6)^b	4 (57.1)^b	7 (58.3)^b
Negative (0%)	6 (9.0)	19 (51.4)	3 (42.9)	5 (41.7)	< 0.001³
Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-receptors
0+	26 (38.8)^a	18 (48.6)^a	2 (28.6)^a	3 (25.0)^a
1+	38 (56.7)^a	11 (29.7)^b	1 (14.3)^b	3 (33.3)^b
3+	3 (4.5)^a	8 (21.6)^b	4 (57.1)^b	5 (41.7)^b	< 0.001²
Proliferative Ki67-index
< 20%	24 (35.8)	6 (16.2)	2 (28.6)	3 (25.0)
≥ 20%	43 (64.2)	31 (83.8)	5 (71.4)	9 (75.0)	0.184³
Lymphadenopathy
Yes	33 (49.3)	22 (59.5)	5 (71.4)	10 (83.3)
No	34 (50.7)	15 (40.5)	2 (28.6)	2 (16.7)	0.130³

^aP < 0.05.

^bP < 0.01.

^cP < 0.001.

¹Kruskal-Wallis test.

²χ² test.

³Fisher’s exact test.

Proportions differ significantly between categories of breast edema score at the 005 level if marked with different subscript letters. HER2: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; BES: Breast edema score.

Full Size Table

Citation: Vasilska A, Tsvetkova S, Doykova K, Chervenkov L, Velikova T, Vasilska M, Sariyan S. Magnetic resonance imaging as a non-invasive breast cancer tool - the relevance of breast edema score: A retrospective study. World J Radiol 2026; 18(4): 119347
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1949-8470/full/v18/i4/119347.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4329/wjr.v18.i4.119347