Literature DB >> 11756721

Nonpalpable breast cancer: mammographic appearance as predictor of histologic type.

Mercidyl Gelig Thurfjell1, Anders Lindgren, Erik Thurfjell.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate the association between mammographic appearance and histologic diagnosis of nonpalpable breast cancers.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mammographic characteristics of 317 consecutive clinically nonpalpable breast cancers in patients treated with breast-conserving surgery were reviewed. Malignant lesions were categorized as spiculated masses, other lesions, calcifications, and combined findings. Calcifications were characterized as amorphous, pleomorphic, or fine linear and branching. Logistic regression was used for the evaluation. Odds ratios (ORs) represent the magnitude of the association between a histologic diagnosis and a mammographic finding.
RESULTS: Spiculated mass without calcifications (n = 150) and calcifications alone (n = 79) accounted for three of four cancers. A spiculated mass without calcifications was strongly associated with invasive cancers (OR = 12). Calcifications alone were strongly associated with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (OR = 19). In a decreasing order, the following invasive cancers were each associated with spiculated lesions without calcifications: ductal carcinoma grade 1 (OR = 28), ductal carcinoma grade 2 (OR = 17), lobular carcinoma (OR = 11), and ductal carcinoma grade 3 (OR = 4.6). Fine linear and branching calcifications alone were associated with not only DCIS nuclear grades 3 (OR = 17) and 2 (OR = 9.7) but also with invasive ductal carcinoma grade 3 (OR = 13).
CONCLUSION: Mammographic appearance can be a predictor of histologic diagnosis in three of four nonpalpable breast cancers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11756721     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2221001471

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  7 in total

1.  Score As You Lift (SAYL): A Statistical Relational Learning Approach to Uplift Modeling.

Authors:  Houssam Nassif; Finn Kuusisto; Elizabeth S Burnside; David Page; Jude Shavlik; Vítor Santos Costa
Journal:  Mach Learn Knowl Discov Databases       Date:  2013

2.  Characterizing the clustered microcalcifications on mammograms to predict the pathological classification and grading: a mathematical modeling approach.

Authors:  Yuan-Zhi Shao; Li-Zhi Liu; Meng-Jie Bie; Chan-chan Li; Yao-pan Wu; Xiao-ming Xie; Li Li
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  Correlation between mammographic and sonographic findings and prognostic factors in patients with node-negative invasive breast cancer.

Authors:  H J Shin; H H Kim; M O Huh; M J Kim; A Yi; H Kim; B H Son; S H Ahn
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2010-08-03       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Using Machine Learning to Identify Benign Cases with Non-Definitive Biopsy.

Authors:  Finn Kuusisto; Inês Dutra; Houssam Nassif; Yirong Wu; Molly E Klein; Heather B Neuman; Jude Shavlik; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  Healthcom       Date:  2013-10-09

5.  Logical Differential Prediction Bayes Net, improving breast cancer diagnosis for older women.

Authors:  Houssam Nassif; Yirong Wu; David Page; Elizabeth Burnside
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2012-11-03

6.  Predicting invasive breast cancer versus DCIS in different age groups.

Authors:  Mehmet U S Ayvaci; Oguzhan Alagoz; Jagpreet Chhatwal; Alejandro Munoz del Rio; Edward A Sickles; Houssam Nassif; Karla Kerlikowske; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2014-08-11       Impact factor: 4.430

7.  Breast cancer detection across dense and non-dense breasts: Markers of diagnostic confidence and efficacy.

Authors:  Ibrahim Hadadi; William Rae; Jillian Clarke; Mark McEntee; Ernest Ekpo
Journal:  Acta Radiol Open       Date:  2022-01-29
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.