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 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

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.