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

(29)

(33)

(0)

(14)

(646)

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

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

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

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 [PMID: 42057841 DOI: 10.4329/wjr.v18.i4.119347]

All content on this site: Copyright © 1993-2026 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, its licensors, and contributors. All rights are reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies. For all open access content, the relevant licensing terms apply.