Literature DB >> 21943463

The influence of clinicopathological features on the predictive accuracy of conventional breast imaging in determining the extent of screen-detected high-grade pure ductal carcinoma in situ.

L Hayward1, R S Oeppen, A V Grima, G T Royle, C M Rubin, R I Cutress.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The extent of calcified ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) detected by screening mammography is a determinant for treatment with breast conserving surgery (BCS). However, DCIS may be uncalcified and almost a quarter of patients with DCIS treated initially by BCS either require a second operation or are found to have unexpected invasive disease following surgery. Identification of these cases might guide selective implementation of additional diagnostic procedures.
METHODS: A retrospective review of patients with a preoperative diagnosis of pure high-grade DCIS at the Southampton and Salisbury Breast Screening Unit over a ten-year period was carried out. Mammograms were reviewed independently by a consultant radiologist and additional factors including the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS(®)) breast density score, DCIS extent and disease location within the breast recorded.
RESULTS: Unexpected invasive disease was found in 35 of 144 patients (24%). Within our unit the re-excision rate for all screen-detected DCIS is currently 23% but for patients included in this study with high-grade DCIS the re-excision rate was 39% (34/87). The extent of DCIS (p=0.008) and lack of expression of the oestrogen receptor (ER) predicted the requirement for re-excision in both univariate (p=0.004) and multivariate analysis (p=0.005).
CONCLUSIONS: High-grade DCIS may be focally uncalcified, leading to underestimation of disease extent, which might be related to ER status. Invasive foci associated with high-grade DCIS are often mammographically occult. Exploration of additional biomarkers and targeted use of further diagnostic techniques may improve the preoperative staging of DCIS.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21943463      PMCID: PMC3365457          DOI: 10.1308/003588411X579829

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl        ISSN: 0035-8843            Impact factor:   1.891


  28 in total

1.  Local control in ductal carcinoma in situ treated by excision alone: incremental benefit of larger margins.

Authors:  Heather R MacDonald; Melvin J Silverstein; Helen Mabry; Brenda Moorthy; Wei Ye; Melinda S Epstein; Dennis Holmes; Howard Silberman; Michael Lagios
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 2.565

2.  Accuracy of mammography in predicting histological extent of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

Authors:  J Chakrabarti; A J Evans; J James; I O Ellis; S E Pinder; R D Macmillan
Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol       Date:  2006-07-26       Impact factor: 4.424

Review 3.  BIRADS classification in mammography.

Authors:  Corinne Balleyguier; Salma Ayadi; Kim Van Nguyen; Daniel Vanel; Clarisse Dromain; Robert Sigal
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2006-12-11       Impact factor: 3.528

4.  BI-RADS classification for management of abnormal mammograms.

Authors:  Margaret M Eberl; Chester H Fox; Stephen B Edge; Cathleen A Carter; Martin C Mahoney
Journal:  J Am Board Fam Med       Date:  2006 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.657

5.  MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study.

Authors:  Christiane K Kuhl; Simone Schrading; Heribert B Bieling; Eva Wardelmann; Claudia C Leutner; Roy Koenig; Walther Kuhn; Hans H Schild
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2007-08-11       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Prediction of the presence of invasive disease from the measurement of extent of malignant microcalcification on mammography and ductal carcinoma in situ grade at core biopsy.

Authors:  E A M O'Flynn; J C Morel; J Gonzalez; N Dutt; D Evans; R Wasan; M J Michell
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2008-10-19       Impact factor: 2.350

7.  Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: correlation of pathologic and mammographic features with extent of disease.

Authors:  J H Coombs; E Hubbard; K Hudson; C Wunderlich; S VanMeter; J L Bell; J L Gwin
Journal:  Am Surg       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 0.688

8.  Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Valerie A McCormack; Isabel dos Santos Silva
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  Prognostic classification of breast ductal carcinoma-in-situ.

Authors:  M J Silverstein; D N Poller; J R Waisman; W J Colburn; A Barth; E D Gierson; B Lewinsky; P Gamagami; D J Slamon
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1995-05-06       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  The Royal College of Radiologists Breast Group breast imaging classification.

Authors:  A J Maxwell; N T Ridley; G Rubin; M G Wallis; F J Gilbert; M J Michell
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2009-04-02       Impact factor: 2.350

View more
  3 in total

1.  Clinicopathologic, mammographic, and sonographic features in 1,187 patients with pure ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast by estrogen receptor status.

Authors:  Gaiane M Rauch; Henry M Kuerer; Marion E Scoggins; Patricia S Fox; Ana P Benveniste; Young Mi Park; Sara A Lari; Brian P Hobbs; Beatriz E Adrada; Savitri Krishnamurthy; Wei T Yang
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2013-06-18       Impact factor: 4.872

2.  Radiopathological features predictive of involved margins in ductal carcinoma in situ.

Authors:  D M Layfield; H See; M Stahnke; L Hayward; R I Cutress; R S Oeppen
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2016-09-23       Impact factor: 1.891

3.  The predictive value of calcification for the grading of ductal carcinoma in situ in Chinese patients.

Authors:  Jianchun Kong; Xiaomin Liu; Xiaodan Zhang; Yu Zou
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-07-10       Impact factor: 1.817

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.