HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Shin, H. J. Articles by Cho, O. K. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Shin, H. J. Articles by Cho, O. K. Social Bookmarking                      What's this? Hotlight (NEW!) What's Hotlight?

Screening-Detected and Symptomatic Ductal Carcinoma in Situ: Differences in the Sonographic and Pathologic Features

¹ Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan, College of Medicine, 388-1 Pungnap-dong, Songpa-Gu, Seoul 138-376, Korea.
² Department of Pathology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan, College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
³ Department of Radiology, Hanyang University Hospital, College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to retrospectively compare the sonographic and pathologic features of screening-detected and symptomatic ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS. Of 5,790 cases diagnosed as breast cancer at our institution between January 1998 and December 2005, 528 (9.1%) cases were DCIS. We found 106 screening-detected and 125 symptomatic DCIS lesions in 226 patients (age range, 20–77 years; mean age, 47.8 years) who underwent preoperative whole-breast sonography and mammography. Three radiologists reviewed the sonographic features of these 231 cases of DCIS by consensus according to Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). The pathologic features were also reviewed. Statistical comparisons were performed using the chi-square test, the Fisher's exact test, and the Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS. On sonography, masses (p < 0.001) and associated ductal change (p = 0.019) were more common in symptomatic than in asymptomatic patients. Associated microcalcifications and posterior shadowing were more frequently found in screening-detected than in symptomatic DCIS (p < 0.001). On mammography, microcalcifications were more common in screening-detected than in symptomatic DCIS, and masses were more common in symptomatic than in screening-detected DCIS (p < 0.001). No significant differences were seen in the pathologic features of the two groups.

CONCLUSION. Our results showed that differences exist in the sonographic features of screening-detected and symptomatic DCIS. Recognition of the many and varied sonographic appearances of DCIS might be helpful to decrease the false-negative rate of bilateral whole-breast sonography and to detect symptomatic mammographically occult DCIS when we use sonography to supplement mammography.

Keywords: breast • breast neoplasm • ductal carcinoma in situ • mammography • pathology • screening • sonograph

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?