BACKGROUND: The value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in diagnosis and size assessment of ductal carcinoma-in-situ (DCIS) and DCIS with small (<10 mm) invasive carcinoma was evaluated. METHODS: Fifty-four patients with DCIS and 12 patients with DCIS and small invasive carcinoma were included. Mammographic (N = 64) and MRI (N = 22) images were retrospectively reviewed. Correlation coefficients were calculated to assess differences in size between imaging and histopathologic examination. RESULTS: Mammographic rate of detection for DCIS was 48/52 (92%) and for DCIS with small invasive carcinoma, 10/12 (83%). MRI revealed 1 false negative case and the rate of detection for DCIS was 16/17 (94%). Correlation of mammographic size with histopathologic size was r = .44 (P < .01) and r = 0.49 (P = .03) for MRI. Mammography underestimated lesion size by 5 mm or more in 47%, whereas with MRI size was adequately assessed in 43% and overestimated in 38%. CONCLUSIONS: DCIS can be visualised on MRI with high sensitivity, although tumor size can be overestimated.
BACKGROUND: The value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in diagnosis and size assessment of ductal carcinoma-in-situ (DCIS) and DCIS with small (<10 mm) invasive carcinoma was evaluated. METHODS: Fifty-four patients with DCIS and 12 patients with DCIS and small invasive carcinoma were included. Mammographic (N = 64) and MRI (N = 22) images were retrospectively reviewed. Correlation coefficients were calculated to assess differences in size between imaging and histopathologic examination. RESULTS: Mammographic rate of detection for DCIS was 48/52 (92%) and for DCIS with small invasive carcinoma, 10/12 (83%). MRI revealed 1 false negative case and the rate of detection for DCIS was 16/17 (94%). Correlation of mammographic size with histopathologic size was r = .44 (P < .01) and r = 0.49 (P = .03) for MRI. Mammography underestimated lesion size by 5 mm or more in 47%, whereas with MRI size was adequately assessed in 43% and overestimated in 38%. CONCLUSIONS: DCIS can be visualised on MRI with high sensitivity, although tumor size can be overestimated.
Authors: Eline E Deurloo; Jincey D Sriram; Hendrik J Teertstra; Claudette E Loo; Jelle Wesseling; Emiel J Th Rutgers; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-02-26 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Kaoru Itakura; Juan Lessing; Theadora Sakata; Amy Heinzerling; Eline Vriens; Dorota Wisner; Michael Alvarado; Laura Esserman; Cheryl Ewing; Nola Hylton; E Shelley Hwang Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Sanaz A Jansen; Xiaobing Fan; Gregory S Karczmar; Hiroyuki Abe; Robert A Schmidt; Maryellen Giger; Gillian M Newstead Journal: Med Phys Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: S A Jansen; S D Conzen; X Fan; T Krausz; M Zamora; S Foxley; J River; G M Newstead; G S Karczmar Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2008-09-09 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: J Thomas; A Evans; J Macartney; S E Pinder; A Hanby; I Ellis; O Kearins; T Roberts; K Clements; G Lawrence; H Bishop Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-01-05 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: S van Esser; G Stapper; P J van Diest; M A A J van den Bosch; J H G M Klaessens; W P Th M Mali; I H M Borel Rinkes; R van Hillegersberg Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-06-09 Impact factor: 5.344