medigraphic.com

2016, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Anales de Radiología México 2016; 15 (2)

Manifestations, by mammography and ultrasound, of ductal carcinoma in situ and its correlation with histopathological findings

Córdova-Chávez NA, Santana-Vela IA, Putz-Botello MD, Arreozola-Mayoral MA, Cuevas-Betancourt RE, Onofre-Castillo JJ

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 131-139
PDF size: 618.18 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objetive: identify manifestations, by mammography and ultrasound, in patients with histopathological report of ductal carcinoma in situ.
Material and Method: an ambilective, transverse, descriptive, observational study. We studied mammograms and ultrasounds from patients with histopathological diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ from January 2010 through November 2015.
Results: eighteen patients were included and the most common findings were by mammography (58%): calcifications (48%) pleomorphic type (41%) and grouped distribution (100%). By ultrasound, there were findings in 42% of the cases: nodes (69%) and area of distortion (31%). The most common category was BI-RADS 4c in 65%. The pattern of ductal carcinoma in situ most commonly found was the non-comedo type (82%) mostly solid (55%). The predominant nuclear grade was low (44%).
Conclusion: it is important to be familiar with the manifestations of ductal carcinoma in situ, by mammography and by ultrasound, to be able to identify it in its earliest stage. Although mammography is a valuable diagnostic mode, to detect breast cancer ultrasound should also be considered to diagnose lesions it may conceal.


REFERENCES

  1. Ban KA, Godellas C V. Epidemiology of breast cancer. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2014;23(3):409-422. doi:10.1016/j. soc.2014.03.011.

  2. Huang ML, Rose S, Yang WT. Breast Cancer Screening: Meeting the Challenges of Today and Exploring the Technologies of Tomorrow. Semin Roentgenol. 2015;50(2):88-100. doi:10.1053/j.ro.2014.10.004.

  3. Duff SW, Dibden A, Michalopoulos D, et al. Screen detection of ductal carcinoma in situ and subsequent incidence of invasive interval breast cancers: a retrospective population- based study. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(1):109-114. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00446-5.

  4. Masson S, Bahl A. The Management of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ: Current Controversies and Future Directions. Clin Oncol. 2013;25(5):275-282. doi:10.1016/j.clon.2013.01.007.

  5. Kim MY, Kim HS, Choi N, Yang J-H, Yoo YB, Park KS. Screening mammography-detected ductal carcinoma in situ: mammographic features based on breast cancer subtypes. Clin Imaging. 2015;39(6):983-986. doi:10.1016/j. clinimag.2015.06.006.

  6. Mossa-Basha M, Fundaro GM, Shah BA, Ali S, Pantelic M V. Ductal Carcinoma in Situ of the Breast: MR Imaging Findings with Histopathologic Correlation. RadioGraphics. 2010;21201:1673-1687. doi:10.1148/rg.306105510.

  7. Perez AA, Balabram D, Salles MDA, Gobbi H. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: correlation between histopathological features and age of patients. Diagn Pathol. 2014;9(227):2-7. doi:10.1186/s13000-014-0227-3.

  8. Raza S, Vallejo M, Chikarmane SA, Birdwell RL. Pure Ductal Carcinoma in Situ: A Range of MRI Features. AJR. 2008;191(3):689-699. doi:10.2214/AJR.07.3779.

  9. Myers ER, Moorman P, Gierrisch JM, et al. Benefits and Harms of Breast Cancer Screening A Systematic Review. JAMA. 2015;314(15):11615-11634. doi:10.1001/ jama.2013.4959.

  10. Schoonjans JM, Brem RF. Sonographic Appearance of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Diagnosed with Ultrasonographically Guided Large Core Needle Biopsy: Correlation with Mammographic and Pathologic Findings. J Ultrasound Med. 2000;19:449-457.

  11. Wang LC, Sullivan M, Du H, Feldman MI, Mendelson EB. US Appearance of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ. RadioGraphics. 2013;33:213-228.

  12. Smetherman DH. Screening, Imaging, and Image-Guided Biopsy Techniques for Breast Cancer. Surg Clin N Am. 2013;93(2):309-327. doi:10.1016/j.suc.2013.01.004.

  13. Schoonjans JM, Brem RF. Sonographic Appearance of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Diagnosed with Ultrasonographically Guided Large Core Needle Biopsy: Correlation with Mammographic and Pathologic Findings. J Ultrasound Med. 2000;19(7):449-457.

  14. Weigel S, Hense HW, Heidrich J, Berrrkermeyer S, Heindel W, Heidinger O. Digital Mammography Screening: Does Age Influence the Detection Rates of Low-, Intermediate-, and High-Grade Ductal Carcinoma in Situ? Radiology. 2015:1-7.

  15. Evans A, Clements K, Maxwell A, et al. Lesion size is a major determinant of the mammographic features of ductal carcinoma in situ: findings from the Sloane project. Clin Radiol. 2010;65(3):181-184. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2009.05.017.

  16. Mesurolle B, El-Khoury M, Khetani K, Abdullah N, Joseph L, Kao E. Mammographically non-calcified ductal carcinoma in situ: sonographic features with pathological correlation in 35 patients. Clin Radiol. 2009;64(6):628-636.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com