Literature DB >> 25479813

Diagnostic evaluation of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: ultrasonographic, mammographic and histopathologic correlations.

Zhan-Qiang Jin1, Mei-Ying Lin2, Wan-Qing Hao3, Hua-Tang Jiang4, Li Zhang5, Wen-Hua Hu6, Miao Zhang7.   

Abstract

The aims of the study described here were to illustrate the spectrum of ultrasonographic features of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and to evaluate the ability of ultrasonography (US) to predict the grade and recurrence of DCIS on the basis of mammographic and histopathologic findings. We retrospectively evaluated the ultrasonographic features of 129 DCIS lesions from 127 consecutive women and compared these with their mammographic and histopathologic features. The mean size of DCISs on ultrasonography and mammography (MMG) was 3.67 ± 1.40 and 4.00 ± 1.74 cm, respectively, which do not differ statistically (p = 0.09). Despite the statistical difference in Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classification on US and MMG (p = 0.000), the median BI-RADS classification is category 4c on both US and MMG (p = 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference in the distribution of microcalcification on MMG and US. Clusters <5 mm in greatest diameter are easily seen on MMG. At US, a scattered/linear distribution on MMG had a higher level of visibility than clustered distribution on MMG. The correlation between tumor size and DCIS with micro-invasion evaluated using US is higher than that obtained using MMG (p = 0.001 and 0.024, respectively). When US was used for the detection of DCIS, diagnostic accuracy was significantly associated with higher Van Nuys groups, the presence of micro-invasion and comedo carcinoma (p = 0.000, 0.022 and 0.011, respectively). However, mammographic diagnostic accuracy was found not to associate with higher Van Nuys groups, the presence of micro-invasion and comedo carcinoma (p = 0.054, 0.093 and 0.256, respectively). Ultrasonography may play an important role both in detecting DCIS and in evaluating its histopathologic features. Detection of DCIS using MMG alone may be suboptimal for patients with dense breasts, especially among Chinese women.
Copyright © 2015 World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast; Ductal carcinoma in situ; Histopathology; Mammography; Ultrasonography

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25479813     DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2014.09.023

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol        ISSN: 0301-5629            Impact factor:   2.998


  10 in total

1.  Tumor characteristics of ductal carcinoma in situ of breast visualized on [F-18] fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography: Results from a retrospective study.

Authors:  Tomoyuki Fujioka; Kazunori Kubota; Akira Toriihara; Youichi Machida; Kaori Okazawa; Tsuyoshi Nakagawa; Yukihisa Saida; Ukihide Tateishi
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2016-08-28

2.  Ultrasonographic features of ductal carcinoma in situ: analysis of 219 lesions.

Authors:  Jun Kang Li; Huan Fan Wang; Yan He; Yong Huang; Gang Liu; Zhi Li Wang
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2020-12

3.  Integrating Ultrasound Teaching into Preclinical Problem-based Learning.

Authors:  Eli Tumba Tshibwabwa; Jenifer Cannon; James Rice; Michael G Kawooya; Reza Sanii; Robert Mallin
Journal:  J Clin Imaging Sci       Date:  2016-09-20

4.  Breast Cancer Detection in a Screening Population: Comparison of Digital Mammography, Computer-Aided Detection Applied to Digital Mammography and Breast Ultrasound.

Authors:  Kyu Ran Cho; Bo Kyoung Seo; Ok Hee Woo; Sung Eun Song; Jungsoon Choi; Shin Young Whang; Eun Kyung Park; Ah Young Park; Hyeseon Shin; Hwan Hoon Chung
Journal:  J Breast Cancer       Date:  2016-09-23       Impact factor: 3.588

5.  Biomarker discovery to improve prediction of breast cancer survival: using gene expression profiling, meta-analysis, and tissue validation.

Authors:  Liwei Meng; Yingchun Xu; Chaoyang Xu; Wei Zhang
Journal:  Onco Targets Ther       Date:  2016-10-11       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 6.  DCIS Margins and Breast Conservation: MD Anderson Cancer Center Multidisciplinary Practice Guidelines and Outcomes.

Authors:  Henry M Kuerer; Benjamin D Smith; Mariana Chavez-MacGregor; Constance Albarracin; Carlos H Barcenas; Lumarie Santiago; Mary E Edgerton; Gaiane M Rauch; Sharon H Giordano; Aysegul Sahin; Savitri Krishnamurthy; Wendy Woodward; Debasish Tripathy; Wei T Yang; Kelly K Hunt
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2017-08-22       Impact factor: 4.207

7.  Diagnostic value of PD-1 mRNA expression combined with breast ultrasound in breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Jianhua Fang; Yi Shao; Jiezhi Su; Ying Wan; Lingyun Bao; Wei Wang; Fanlei Kong
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2018-08-28       Impact factor: 2.423

8.  A Comparative Study of Multiple Deep Learning Models Based on Multi-Input Resolution for Breast Ultrasound Images.

Authors:  Huaiyu Wu; Xiuqin Ye; Yitao Jiang; Hongtian Tian; Keen Yang; Chen Cui; Siyuan Shi; Yan Liu; Sijing Huang; Jing Chen; Jinfeng Xu; Fajin Dong
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-07-07       Impact factor: 5.738

9.  Application of deep learning to identify ductal carcinoma in situ and microinvasion of the breast using ultrasound imaging.

Authors:  Meng Zhu; Yong Pi; Zekun Jiang; Yanyan Wu; Hong Bu; Ji Bao; Yujuan Chen; Lijun Zhao; Yulan Peng
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2022-09

10.  Characteristics of ultrasonographic images of ductal carcinoma in situ with abnormalities of the ducts.

Authors:  Kanako Ban; Hiroko Tsunoda; Takanori Watanabe; Setsuko Kaoku; Takuhiro Yamaguchi; Ei Ueno; Koichi Hirokaga; Kumiko Tanaka
Journal:  J Med Ultrason (2001)       Date:  2019-10-26       Impact factor: 1.314

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.