Literature DB >> 8191988

Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: correlation between mammographic and pathologic findings.

A Evans1, S Pinder, R Wilson, M Sibbering, D Poller, C Elston, I Ellis.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Ductal carcinoma in situ shows heterogeneous clinical behavior and response to treatment depending on its pathologic features. The aim of this study was to correlate the radiologic and pathologic features of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Differences, if present, may allow refinement of diagnosis and selection of treatment options.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The mammograms of 128 patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast were analyzed by a radiologist who knew that the patients had ductal carcinoma in situ but had no other pathologic information. The radiologic and pathologic features of subgroups characterized according to cell size and presence of necrosis were then compared. Statistical comparisons were made by using the chi 2- and Fisher's exact tests.
RESULTS: Patients with small-cell ductal carcinoma in situ more commonly have a normal mammogram (28% vs 6%, respectively, p < .001) or an abnormal mammogram without calcification (42% vs 5%, respectively, p < .001) than do patients with large-cell ductal carcinoma in situ. Among patients with abnormal mammographic findings, calcification is present in 58% of those with small-cell ductal carcinoma in situ, compared with 95% of those with large-cell ductal carcinoma in situ (p < .001). No significant differences were found in the calcification morphology of small- and large-cell ductal carcinoma in situ. These features were seen more commonly in ductal carcinoma in situ with necrosis than in ductal carcinoma in situ without necrosis, respectively: abnormal mammographic findings (95% vs 73%, p < .001), calcification (96% vs 61%, p < .001), calcification with a ductal distribution (80% vs 45%, p < .005), and rod-shaped calcification (83% vs 45%, p < .001). An abnormal mammogram without calcification (39% vs 4%, p < .001) or predominantly punctate calcification (36% vs 13%, p < .05) was seen more commonly in ductal carcinoma in situ without necrosis than in ductal carcinoma in situ with necrosis, respectively.
CONCLUSION: We have shown that the radiologic features of ductal carcinoma in situ vary according to cell size and the presence of necrosis in particular. Necrosis has been found to be a feature of more biologically aggressive in situ breast cancer, so these findings may be of practical value in deciding the management of indeterminate calcification clusters and whether to offer breast conservation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8191988     DOI: 10.2214/ajr.162.6.8191988

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


  21 in total

1.  What is the sensitivity of mammography and dynamic MR imaging for DCIS if the whole-breast histopathology is used as a reference standard?

Authors:  F Sardanelli; L Bacigalupo; L Carbonaro; A Esseridou; G M Giuseppetti; P Panizza; V Lattanzio; A Del Maschio
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2008-07-09       Impact factor: 3.469

2.  Precision biopsy of breast microcalcifications: An improvement in surgical excision.

Authors:  You Peng; Zhong-Yao Luo; Jie Ni; Hai-Dong Cui; Bei Lu; Ai-Zhai Xiang; Jun Zhou; Jin-Wang Ding; Wen-Hui Chen; Jing Zhao; Jian-Hua Fang; Pan Zhao
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2018-05-22       Impact factor: 2.967

3.  US and MRI in the evaluation of mammographic BI-RADS 4 and 5 microcalcifications.

Authors:  Ana Hrkac Pustahija; Gordana Ivanac; Boris Brkljacic
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 2.630

Review 4.  Advances in Breast MRI in the Setting of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.

Authors:  Nita Amornsiripanitch; Diana L Lam; Habib Rahbar
Journal:  Semin Roentgenol       Date:  2018-08-30       Impact factor: 0.800

5.  Attacking breast cancer at the preinvasion stage by targeting autophagy.

Authors:  Virginia Espina; John Wysolmerski; Kirsten Edmiston; Lance A Liotta
Journal:  Womens Health (Lond)       Date:  2013-03

Review 6.  Modern concepts of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and its diagnosis through percutaneous biopsy.

Authors:  Ute Kettritz
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-09-27       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  3-D reconstruction and virtual ductoscopy of high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast with casting type calcifications using refraction-based X-ray CT.

Authors:  Shu Ichihara; Masami Ando; Anton Maksimenko; Tetsuya Yuasa; Hiroshi Sugiyama; Eiko Hashimoto; Katsuhito Yamasaki; Kensaku Mori; Yoshinori Arai; Tokiko Endo
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2007-11-14       Impact factor: 4.064

8.  Predictive factors for invasive cancer in surgical specimens following an initial diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ after stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in microcalcification-only lesions.

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

9.  Mammographic features of calcifications in DCIS: correlation with oestrogen receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status.

Authors:  Min Sun Bae; Woo Kyung Moon; Jung Min Chang; Nariya Cho; So Yeon Park; Jae-Kyung Won; Yoon-Kyung Jeon; Hyeong-Gon Moon; Wonshik Han; In Ae Park
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-03-20       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Radiological and pathological size estimations of pure ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast, specimen handling and the influence on the success of breast conservation surgery: a review of 2564 cases from the Sloane Project.

Authors:  J Thomas; A Evans; J Macartney; S E Pinder; A Hanby; I Ellis; O Kearins; T Roberts; K Clements; G Lawrence; H Bishop
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2010-01-05       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.