C S Giess1, D M Keating, M P Osborne, R Rosenblatt. 1. Department of Radiology, New York Presbyterian Hospital-Weill Medical College of Cornell University, Strang Cornell Breast Center, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To correlate histopathologic findings with detection method and mammographic appearance in primary and locally recurrent breast carcinoma after breast-conservation therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical records and mammographic findings were retrospectively reviewed; 26 patients with 27 local recurrences after breast-conservation therapy were identified. RESULTS: Primary histopathologic findings included six in situ and 20 invasive carcinomas. Of the 27 recurrences, 19 (70%) were at or adjacent to the lumpectomy site and eight (30%) were elsewhere in the breast. All primary ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) cases manifested mammographically as microcalcifications and recurred as DCIS with microcalcifications. Eleven primary invasive carcinomas (10 masses, one case of microcalcifications) were detected only mammographically, three were detected only with physical examination, and six (six masses) were detected with both. Among these 20 recurrences, 14 (five masses, nine cases of microcalcifications) were detected only mammographically, one was detected only with physical examination, and five (five masses) were detected with both. Seventeen (85%) of 20 primary invasive carcinomas recurred invasively: 16 (94%) with similar histopathologic findings and eight (47%) with similar mammographic findings. CONCLUSION: In local recurrence after breast-conservation therapy for DCIS, histopathologic findings, detection method, and mammographic findings are usually similar. Histopathologic findings of primary invasive breast carcinoma and local recurrence are usually similar, but the detection method and mammographic findings vary. This is relevant to the interpretation of new clinical or mammographic findings following lumpectomy.
PURPOSE: To correlate histopathologic findings with detection method and mammographic appearance in primary and locally recurrent breast carcinoma after breast-conservation therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical records and mammographic findings were retrospectively reviewed; 26 patients with 27 local recurrences after breast-conservation therapy were identified. RESULTS: Primary histopathologic findings included six in situ and 20 invasive carcinomas. Of the 27 recurrences, 19 (70%) were at or adjacent to the lumpectomy site and eight (30%) were elsewhere in the breast. All primary ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) cases manifested mammographically as microcalcifications and recurred as DCIS with microcalcifications. Eleven primary invasive carcinomas (10 masses, one case of microcalcifications) were detected only mammographically, three were detected only with physical examination, and six (six masses) were detected with both. Among these 20 recurrences, 14 (five masses, nine cases of microcalcifications) were detected only mammographically, one was detected only with physical examination, and five (five masses) were detected with both. Seventeen (85%) of 20 primary invasive carcinomas recurred invasively: 16 (94%) with similar histopathologic findings and eight (47%) with similar mammographic findings. CONCLUSION: In local recurrence after breast-conservation therapy for DCIS, histopathologic findings, detection method, and mammographic findings are usually similar. Histopathologic findings of primary invasive breast carcinoma and local recurrence are usually similar, but the detection method and mammographic findings vary. This is relevant to the interpretation of new clinical or mammographic findings following lumpectomy.