PURPOSE: To compare the mammographic and pathologic features of screening-detected and symptomatic ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The mammographic and pathologic features of 54 screening-detected and 77 symptomatic cases of DCIS were compared. Patients were aged 30-76 years (mean, 58 years). RESULTS: Diffuse involvement was seen in 10 patients (13%) with symptoms but in none of the screening-detected group (P < .05). The disease was radiologically more extensive in the symptomatic group. Calcifications in the symptomatic group (n = 48) were less likely to have a ductal distribution than those in the screening-detected group (n = 48) (30 [63%] vs 40 [83%], respectively; P < .05). At histologic examination in some cases, the symptomatic group (n = 76) included eight (11%) patients with cribriform-micropapillary, large-cell tumors (P < .05) and less comedocarcinoma (20 [26%] vs 23 [45%], respectively; P < .05) compared with the screening-detected group (n = 51). CONCLUSION: The results show differences in the radiologic and pathologic features of screening-detected and symptomatic DCIS.
PURPOSE: To compare the mammographic and pathologic features of screening-detected and symptomatic ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The mammographic and pathologic features of 54 screening-detected and 77 symptomatic cases of DCIS were compared. Patients were aged 30-76 years (mean, 58 years). RESULTS: Diffuse involvement was seen in 10 patients (13%) with symptoms but in none of the screening-detected group (P < .05). The disease was radiologically more extensive in the symptomatic group. Calcifications in the symptomatic group (n = 48) were less likely to have a ductal distribution than those in the screening-detected group (n = 48) (30 [63%] vs 40 [83%], respectively; P < .05). At histologic examination in some cases, the symptomatic group (n = 76) included eight (11%) patients with cribriform-micropapillary, large-cell tumors (P < .05) and less comedocarcinoma (20 [26%] vs 23 [45%], respectively; P < .05) compared with the screening-detected group (n = 51). CONCLUSION: The results show differences in the radiologic and pathologic features of screening-detected and symptomatic DCIS.
Authors: Harrison X Bai; Sabin B Motwani; Susan A Higgins; Bruce G Haffty; Lynn D Wilson; Donald R Lannin; Suzanne B Evans; Meena S Moran Journal: Int J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-06-19 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: C C Wykoff; N Beasley; P H Watson; L Campo; S K Chia; R English; J Pastorek; W S Sly; P Ratcliffe; A L Harris Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: Gaiane M Rauch; Brian P Hobbs; Henry M Kuerer; Marion E Scoggins; Ana P Benveniste; Young Mi Park; Abigail S Caudle; Patricia S Fox; Benjamin D Smith; Beatriz E Adrada; Savitri Krishnamurthy; Wei T Yang Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-09-28 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Hatice Gümüş; Philippa Mills; David Fish; Metehan Gümüş; Karina Cox; Haresh Devalia; Sue Jones; Peter Jones; Ali R Sever Journal: Diagn Interv Radiol Date: 2016 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.630