M Zhang1, Q Lin2, X H Su1, C X Cui1, T T Bian1, C Q Wang3, J Zhao3, L L Li1, J Z Ma1, J L Huang1. 1. The Department of Breast Imaging, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, No. 59, Haier Road, Qingdao 266100, Shandong province, China. 2. The Department of Breast Imaging, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, No. 59, Haier Road, Qingdao 266100, Shandong province, China. Electronic address: linqing9180@126.com. 3. The Department of Pathology, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, No. 59, Haier Road, Qingdao 266100, Shandong province, China.
Abstract
AIM: To determine the differences in clinicopathological and mammographic findings between ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and ductal carcinoma in situ with micro-invasion (DCIS-MI) and explore clinicopathological and mammographic factors associated with DCIS-MI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All DCIS patients with or without micro-invasion who underwent preoperative mammography at The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University from January 2016 through June 2020 were identified retrospectively. The correlations of clinicopathological findings with DCIS-MI were evaluated using univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression analyses. Imaging findings were compared between the groups by using the Pearson chi-square test. RESULTS: A total of 445 DCIS lesions and 151 DCIS-MI lesions were included in the final analysis. Large extent (≥2.7 cm), high nuclear grade, comedo-type, negative progesterone receptor (PR), negative oestrogen receptor (ER), high Ki-67 and axillary lymph node metastasis were more frequently found in DCIS-MI than in DCIS (all p<0.05), and the first four of these were found to be independent predictors of DCIS-MI in the multivariate analysis (all p<0.05). Regarding imaging findings, compared to DCIS, DCIS-MI showed fewer occult lesions and more lesions with calcifications in mass, asymmetry, and architectural distortion (p=0.004). Grouped calcifications were usually associated with DCIS, while regional calcifications were commonly found in DCIS-MI (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Large extent, high nuclear grade, comedo-type and negative PR were found to be independent predictors of DCIS-MI. Lesions with calcifications and regional calcifications were more likely associated with DCIS-MI on mammography.
AIM: To determine the differences in clinicopathological and mammographic findings between ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and ductal carcinoma in situ with micro-invasion (DCIS-MI) and explore clinicopathological and mammographic factors associated with DCIS-MI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All DCIS patients with or without micro-invasion who underwent preoperative mammography at The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University from January 2016 through June 2020 were identified retrospectively. The correlations of clinicopathological findings with DCIS-MI were evaluated using univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression analyses. Imaging findings were compared between the groups by using the Pearson chi-square test. RESULTS: A total of 445 DCIS lesions and 151 DCIS-MI lesions were included in the final analysis. Large extent (≥2.7 cm), high nuclear grade, comedo-type, negative progesterone receptor (PR), negative oestrogen receptor (ER), high Ki-67 and axillary lymph node metastasis were more frequently found in DCIS-MI than in DCIS (all p<0.05), and the first four of these were found to be independent predictors of DCIS-MI in the multivariate analysis (all p<0.05). Regarding imaging findings, compared to DCIS, DCIS-MI showed fewer occult lesions and more lesions with calcifications in mass, asymmetry, and architectural distortion (p=0.004). Grouped calcifications were usually associated with DCIS, while regional calcifications were commonly found in DCIS-MI (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Large extent, high nuclear grade, comedo-type and negative PR were found to be independent predictors of DCIS-MI. Lesions with calcifications and regional calcifications were more likely associated with DCIS-MI on mammography.