Role of ultrasound and sonographically guided core biopsy in the diagnostic evaluation of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast

被引:21
作者
Londero V. [1 ]
Zuiani C. [1 ]
Furlan A. [1 ]
Nori J. [2 ]
Bazzocchi M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Istituto di Radiologia, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Udine, Udine I-33100
[2] Diagnostica Senologica, AOU Careggi, Firenze I-50139
关键词
Breast biopsy; Breast neoplasms; Diagnosis; Ductal carcinoma in situ; US;
D O I
10.1007/s11547-007-0183-z
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Purpose. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of ultrasound (US)-guided core biopsy in the diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and to correlate the histological results on percutaneous biopsy and surgical excision. Materials and methods. Out of 2,423 consecutive core biopsies performed under US guidance, we evaluated 65 lesions with a histological diagnosis of DCIS. All patients underwent mammography, high-frequency broadband US and percutaneous breast biopsy with a 14-gauge needle and a mean number of five samples (range 4-7 passes). Surgical excision was performed in all cases, and the histological results on the surgical specimen were correlated with those on core biopsy samples. The sonographic features of DCIS lesions were described, comparing pure DCIS (those confirmed by definitive histology) and DCIS with invasive component at surgical excision. Results. Twenty-seven out of 65 DCIS at core biopsy were found to have an invasive or microinvasive component at surgical excision, leading to rate of histological underestimation of core biopsy of 41.5%. The most frequent sonographic appearances were: (a) mass without microcalcifications (47.4% of pure DCIS, 63% of DCIS with invasive component); (b) mass with microcalcifications (23.7% of pure DCIS, 22% of DCIS with invasive component); (c) isolated microcalcifications (10.5% of pure DCIS); (d) ductal abnormalities (18.4% of pure DCIS, 15% of DCIS with invasive component). Conclusions. Due to the high underestimation rate of core biopsy, caution is mandatory in the case of DCIS diagnosis on core biopsy. Although some histological features (such as stromal fibrosis, periductal inflammatory infiltrate, high nuclear grade) can suggest the presence of an invasive component, the sonographic appearance of DCIS cannot be used to predict the cases that are underestimated on US-guided core biopsy. Nevertheless, a sonographically detectable solid component, either inside dilatated ducts or associated with microcalcifications, and a size greater than 20 mm are frequently associated with the presence of an invasive component. © 2007 Springer-Verlag.
引用
收藏
页码:863 / 876
页数:13
相关论文
共 38 条
[1]  
Burstein H.J., Polyak K., Wrong J.S., Et al., Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast, N Engl J Med, 350, pp. 1430-1441, (2004)
[2]  
Viehweg P., Lampe D., Buchman J., Et al., In situ and minimally invasive breast cancer: Morphologic and kinetic features on contrast-enhanced MR imaging, MAGMA, 11, pp. 129-137, (2002)
[3]  
Stomper P.C., Margolin F.R., Ductal carcinoma in situ: The mammographer's perspective, AJR Am J Roentgenol, 162, pp. 585-591, (1994)
[4]  
Orel S.G., Mendonca M.H., Reynolds C., Et al., MR imaging of ductal carcinoma in situ, Radiology, 202, pp. 413-420, (1997)
[5]  
Stomper P.C., Connolly J.L., Meyer J.E., Et al., Clinically occult ductal carcinoma in situ detected with mammography: Analysis of 100 cases with radiologic-pathologic correlation, Radiology, 172, pp. 235-241, (1989)
[6]  
Dershaw D.D., Abramson A., Kinne D.W., Ductal carcinoma in situ: Mammographic findings and clinical implications, Radiology, 170, pp. 411-415, (1989)
[7]  
Ikeda D.M., Andersson I., Ductal carcinoma in situ: Atypical mammographic appearances, Radiology, 172, pp. 661-666, (1989)
[8]  
Feig S.A., Ductal carcinoma in situ: Implications for screening mammography, Radiol Clin North Am, 38, pp. 653-668, (2000)
[9]  
Holland P., Peterse J.L., Millis R.R., Et al., Ductal carcinoma in situ: A proposal for a new classification, Sem Diagn Pathol, 11, pp. 167-180, (1994)
[10]  
Moon W.K., Im J.-G., Noh D.Y., Et al., US of mammographically detected clustered microcalcifications, Radiology, 217, pp. 849-854, (2000)