Literature DB >> 33447545

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

Jun Kang Li1, Huan Fan Wang2, Yan He3, Yong Huang4, Gang Liu5, Zhi Li Wang3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this paper is to clarify the ultrasonographic features and classification of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and to evaluate the ability of ultrasonography in the prediction of DCIS.
METHODS: The clinical data, gray-scale ultrasound images and pathological results of 219 DCIS lesions that detected in 203 consecutive patients who underwent ultrasonography and surgery in our hospital from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2019 were collected retrospectively. Ultrasonographic features and classification of DCIS were summarized, and the accuracy of ultrasonography in predicting different ultrasonographic findings of DCIS were compared.
RESULTS: Among the 219 DCIS lesions, 91 (41.6%) presented as mass-like lesions and 128 (58.4%) were non-mass-like lesions. For the 91 mass-like DCIS lesions, 79 were hypoechoic solid masses, 12 were cystic-solid structures. For the 128 non-mass-like DCIS lesions, 114 were hypoechoic areas, 10 were ductal dilatation accompanied with intraductal solid components, and 4 were multiple punctate echogenic foci only. The diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound for the 219 DCIS lesions was 81.7% (179/219). The diagnostic accuracy of mass-like DCIS lesions was 90.1% (82/91), which was significantly higher than that in non-mass-like DCIS lesions [75.8% (97/128), P=0.007]. The diagnostic accuracy of hypoechoic solid masses was significantly higher than those of the other ultrasonographic findings (P=0.002). Ducts abnormalities were detected in 45 (20.5%) lesions and punctate echogenic foci in 134 (61.2%) lesions. The diagnostic accuracy of lesions with ducts abnormalities was 93.3% (42/45), which was significantly higher than that in lesions without ducts abnormalities [78.7% (137/174), P=0.024]. The diagnostic accuracy of lesions with punctate echogenic foci was 92.5% (124/134), which was significantly higher than that in lesions without punctate echogenic foci [64.7% (55/85), P=0.000].
CONCLUSIONS: DCIS lesions can effectively be recognized as mass-like lesions and non-mass-like lesions by ultrasound. Hypoechoic areas and hypoechoic solid masses were the most common ultrasonographic features of DCIS. Ducts abnormalities and punctate echogenic foci were helpful for the diagnosis of DCIS. 2020 Gland Surgery. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS); duct abnormality; echogenic foci; ultrasonography

Year:  2020        PMID: 33447545      PMCID: PMC7804561          DOI: 10.21037/gs-20-428

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gland Surg        ISSN: 2227-684X


  39 in total

1.  Nonmasslike lesions on breast sonography: comparison between benign and malignant lesions.

Authors:  Suk Jung Kim; Young Mi Park; Hyun Kyung Jung
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 2.153

Review 2.  Ductal carcinoma in situ (intraductal carcinoma) of the breast.

Authors:  S J Schnitt; W Silen; N L Sadowsky; J L Connolly; J R Harris
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1988-04-07       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Non-mass versus mass-like ultrasound patterns in ductal carcinoma in situ: is there an association with high-risk histology?

Authors:  D S Gunawardena; S Burrows; D B Taylor
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2019-11-15       Impact factor: 2.350

4.  Breast Cancer, Version 4.2017, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

Authors:  William J Gradishar; Benjamin O Anderson; Ron Balassanian; Sarah L Blair; Harold J Burstein; Amy Cyr; Anthony D Elias; William B Farrar; Andres Forero; Sharon H Giordano; Matthew P Goetz; Lori J Goldstein; Steven J Isakoff; Janice Lyons; P Kelly Marcom; Ingrid A Mayer; Beryl McCormick; Meena S Moran; Ruth M O'Regan; Sameer A Patel; Lori J Pierce; Elizabeth C Reed; Kilian E Salerno; Lee S Schwartzberg; Amy Sitapati; Karen Lisa Smith; Mary Lou Smith; Hatem Soliman; George Somlo; Melinda L Telli; John H Ward; Rashmi Kumar; Dorothy A Shead
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 11.908

5.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Directed Ultrasound Imaging of Non-Mass Enhancement in the Breast: Outcomes and Frequency of Malignancy.

Authors:  Adrienne R Newburg; Chloe M Chhor; Leng Leng Young Lin; Samantha L Heller; Jennifer Gillman; Hildegard K Toth; Linda Moy
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2017-01-21       Impact factor: 2.153

6.  Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: detection and classification with high-resolution sonography.

Authors:  W Buchberger; A Niehoff; P Obrist; P DeKoekkoek-Doll; M Dünser
Journal:  Semin Ultrasound CT MR       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 1.875

7.  Non-mass breast lesions on ultrasound: final outcomes and predictors of malignancy.

Authors:  Jong Won Park; Kyung Hee Ko; Eun-Kyung Kim; Cherie M Kuzmiak; Hae Kyoung Jung
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  2017-01-23       Impact factor: 1.990

8.  Comparative analysis of size estimation by mapping and counting number of blocks with ductal carcinoma in situ in breast excision specimens.

Authors:  Farnaz Dadmanesh; Xuemo Fan; Aditi Dastane; Mahul B Amin; Shikha Bose
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 5.534

9.  Histopathology findings of non-mass cancers on breast ultrasound.

Authors:  Hye Rin Kim; Hae Kyoung Jung
Journal:  Acta Radiol Open       Date:  2018-05-29

10.  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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.