Literature DB >> 25794082

Correlation between sonographic findings and clinicopathologic and biologic features of pure ductal carcinoma in situ in 691 patients.

Marion E Scoggins1, Patricia S Fox, Henry M Kuerer, Gaiane M Rauch, Ana P Benveniste, Young Mi Park, Sara A Lari, Savitri Krishnamurthy, Wei T Yang.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to compare the sonographic features of pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) lesions with the initial clinical presentation and histopathologic findings.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The images and records of 691 patients with pure DCIS who underwent preoperative mammography and whole-breast sonography as part of staging workup in a single institution from January 1, 1996, through July 31, 2009, were reviewed. The BI-RADS sonography lexicon was used when reviewing the sonographic studies. Histopathologic features recorded included estrogen receptor (ER) status, nuclear grade, and presence or absence of comedonecrosis. Statistical comparisons were made using the Student t test, chi-square test, Fisher exact test, Kruskal-Wallis or Wilcoxon rank sum test, multiple logistic regression analysis, and Pearson correlation coefficient.
RESULTS: A total of 304 (44%) tumors were visible on mammography and sonography; 315 (46%), on mammography only; 58 (8%), on sonography only; and 14 (2%), on neither mammography nor sonography. The most common sonographic appearance of DCIS was an irregular hypoechoic mass with indistinct margins and normal posterior features that was indistinguishable from invasive carcinoma. Patients with symptomatic high-nuclear-grade DCIS, dense breasts, and comedonecrosis were younger and had larger tumors on sonography than asymptomatic women with nondense breasts and low-nuclear-grade and noncomedo DCIS. Women with ER-negative DCIS were older and had larger tumors on sonography than women with ER-positive DCIS. ER-negative tumors were more frequently visible on sonography than ER-positive tumors (p=0.007). High-grade DCIS (p<0.0001) and comedo DCIS (p<0.0001) presented more frequently as microcalcifications, architectural distortion, and ductal changes on sonography than low-grade DCIS or noncomedo DCIS.
CONCLUSION: Of the 691 pure DCIS lesions, 362 (52%) were visible on sonography and presented most commonly as a mass. Lesion visibility of DCIS on sonography was not related to nuclear grade or the presence of comedonecrosis.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast neoplasm; ductal carcinoma in situ; mammography; ultrasound

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25794082     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.13.12221

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  8 in total

1.  The use of ultrasonography and digital mammography in women under 40 years with symptomatic breast cancer: a 7-year Irish experience.

Authors:  C E Redmond; G M Healy; C F Murphy; A O'Doherty; A Foster
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2016-06-07       Impact factor: 1.568

2.  Performance of Mid-Treatment Breast Ultrasound and Axillary Ultrasound in Predicting Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy by Breast Cancer Subtype.

Authors:  Rosalind P Candelaria; Roland L Bassett; William Fraser Symmans; Maheshwari Ramineni; Stacy L Moulder; Henry M Kuerer; Alastair M Thompson; Wei Tse Yang
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2017-03-17

3.  Ultrasound evaluation of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.

Authors:  Marco Moschetta; Angela Sardaro; Adriana Nitti; Michele Telegrafo; Nicola Maggialetti; Arnaldo Scardapane; Maria Chiara Brunese; Valentina Lavelli; Cristina Ferrari
Journal:  J Ultrasound       Date:  2021-01-06

4.  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

5.  Imaging and pathologic features of non-calcified ductal carcinoma in situ: can sonography predict upgrade?

Authors:  Rohini Komarla; Lawrence Gilliland; Maria Piraner; Rebecca Seidel; Kelly Clifford; Jean Kunjummen
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-12-21       Impact factor: 3.039

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.  Comparison of the sensitivity of mammography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging and combinations of these imaging modalities for the detection of small (≤2 cm) breast cancer.

Authors:  Hai-Long Chen; Jiao-Qun Zhou; Qiang Chen; Yong-Chuan Deng
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2021-07-02       Impact factor: 1.817

8.  Ultrasonographic features of pure ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: correlations with pathologic features and biological markers.

Authors:  Hwajin Cha; Yun-Woo Chang; Eun Ji Lee; Ji Young Hwang; Hyun Joo Kim; Eun Hye Lee; Jung Kyu Ryu
Journal:  Ultrasonography       Date:  2017-10-13
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.