Ji-Yeon Han1, Jin Hwa Lee2,3, Eun-Kyung Kim4, Suyoung Shin1,5, Myong Jin Kang1, Keun-Cheol Lee6, Kyung Jin Nam1. 1. Department of Radiology, Dong-A University College of Medicine, 1,3-ga, Dongdaesin-dong, Seo-gu, Busan, 602-715, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Radiology, Dong-A University College of Medicine, 1,3-ga, Dongdaesin-dong, Seo-gu, Busan, 602-715, Republic of Korea. jhrad@dau.ac.kr. 3. Breast Center, Dong-A University Medical Center, 1,3-ga, Dongdaesin-dong, Seo-gu, Busan, 602-715, Republic of Korea. jhrad@dau.ac.kr. 4. Department of Radiology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 134 Shinchon-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 120-752, Republic of Korea. 5. Breast Center, Dong-A University Medical Center, 1,3-ga, Dongdaesin-dong, Seo-gu, Busan, 602-715, Republic of Korea. 6. Department of Plastic Surgery and Reconstructive Surgery, Dong-A University College of Medicine, 1,3-ga, Dongdaesin-dong, Seo-gu, Busan, 602-715, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To retrospectively review sonographic findings of breast cancers presenting as only microcalcifications on mammography and to evaluate factors essential for differentiating ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) from invasive cancers. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 620 consecutive patients with confirmed breast cancer according to surgery performed between March 2008 and October 2011 at our institution. Of these, 53 lesions from 52 patients who had only microcalcifications without a mass or other associated findings on mammography were selected. Sonographic findings of microcalcification areas were analyzed and correlated with the histopathological findings. RESULTS: Of the 53 lesions, 26 (49.18 %) were classified as invasive cancer and 27 (50.9 %) as DCIS. Ultrasonography (US) showed only echogenic calcifications in five (9.4 %), calcifications within hypoechoic parenchymal thickening in 14 (26.4 %), calcifications within ductal changes in three (5.7 %), and calcifications within a mass in 14 (26.4 %). Seventeen (32.1 %) lesions were not visible on US. Negative findings in US were more frequently observed for DCIS (n = 15, 55.6 %) than for invasive cancers (n = 2, 7.7 %) (p < 0.001). Masses (n = 11, 42.3 % of invasive cancer; n = 3, 11.1 % of DCIS; p = 0.01) were more frequently observed in invasive cancers than in DCIS. CONCLUSIONS: US findings of breast cancers presenting as only mammographic microcalcifications were significantly different between DCIS and invasive cancers. Targeted US of microcalcifications might be helpful for predicting invasive cancers and for determining the clinical preoperative work-up, including axillary staging.
PURPOSE: To retrospectively review sonographic findings of breast cancers presenting as only microcalcifications on mammography and to evaluate factors essential for differentiating ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) from invasive cancers. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 620 consecutive patients with confirmed breast cancer according to surgery performed between March 2008 and October 2011 at our institution. Of these, 53 lesions from 52 patients who had only microcalcifications without a mass or other associated findings on mammography were selected. Sonographic findings of microcalcification areas were analyzed and correlated with the histopathological findings. RESULTS: Of the 53 lesions, 26 (49.18 %) were classified as invasive cancer and 27 (50.9 %) as DCIS. Ultrasonography (US) showed only echogenic calcifications in five (9.4 %), calcifications within hypoechoic parenchymal thickening in 14 (26.4 %), calcifications within ductal changes in three (5.7 %), and calcifications within a mass in 14 (26.4 %). Seventeen (32.1 %) lesions were not visible on US. Negative findings in US were more frequently observed for DCIS (n = 15, 55.6 %) than for invasive cancers (n = 2, 7.7 %) (p < 0.001). Masses (n = 11, 42.3 % of invasive cancer; n = 3, 11.1 % of DCIS; p = 0.01) were more frequently observed in invasive cancers than in DCIS. CONCLUSIONS: US findings of breast cancers presenting as only mammographic microcalcifications were significantly different between DCIS and invasive cancers. Targeted US of microcalcifications might be helpful for predicting invasive cancers and for determining the clinical preoperative work-up, including axillary staging.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast neoplasms; Mammography; Microcalcification; Noninfiltrating intraductal carcinoma; Ultrasonography
Authors: Amber A Guth; Cecilia Mercado; Daniel F Roses; Farbod Darvishian; Baljit Singh; Joan F Cangiarella Journal: Breast J Date: 2008 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.431