Measuring extent of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast excision specimens: A comparison of 4 methods

Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 133, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 31-37

  Grin, Andrea ^a,b   Horne, Garnet ^c   Ennis, Marguerite ^d   O'Malley, Frances P ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^d NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CALCIFICATION; CANCER SIZE; CONTROLLED STUDY; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CALCINOSIS; CARCINOMA, INTRADUCTAL, NONINFILTRATING; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MAMMOGRAPHY; MICROTOMY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 58349091723     PISSN: 00039985     EISSN: 15432165     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Wellings SR. A hypothesis of the origin of human breast cancer from the terminal ductal lobular unit. Pathol Res Pract. 1980;166:515-535.
2. Mai KT, Yazdi HM, Burns BF, Perkins DG. Pattern of distribution of intraductal and infiltrating ductal carcinoma: a three-dimensional study using serial coronal giant sections of the breast. Hum Pathol. 2000;31:464-474.
3. Love SM, Barsky SH. Anatomy of the nipple and breast ducts revisited. Cancer. 2004;101:1947-1957.
4. Faverly DR, Burgers L, Bult P, Holland R. Three dimensional imaging of mammary ductal carcinoma in situ: clinical implications. Semin Diagn Pathol. 1994;11:193-198.
5. OhtakeT, Kimijima I, FukushimaT, et al. Computer-assisted complete three-dimensional reconstruction of the mammary ductal/lobular systems: implications of ductal anastomoses for breast-conserving surgery. Cancer. 2001;91:2263-2272.
6. Going JJ, Moffat DF. Escaping from flatland: clinical and biological aspects of human mammary duct anatomy in three dimensions. J Pathol. 2004;203:538-544.
7. Egan RL, McSweeney MB. Multicentric breast carcinoma. Recent Results Cancer Res. 1984;90:28-35.
8. Holland R. The role of specimen X-ray in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Diagn Imaging Clin Med. 1985;54:1 78-185.
9. Lagios MD. Pathologic procedures for mammographically-detected ductal carcinoma in situ. In: Silverstein MJ, ed. Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast. 1st ed. New York, NY: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Publishers; 1997:189193.
10. de Mascarel I, Bonichon F, MacGrogan G, et al. Application of the Van Nuys Prognostic Index in a retrospective series of 367 ductal carcinomas in situ of the breast examined by serial macroscopic sectioning: practical considerations. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2000;61:151-159.
11. Silverstein MJ, Buchanan C. Ductal carcinoma in situ: USC/Van Nuys Prognostic Index and the impact of margin status. Breast. 2003;12:457-471.
12. Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Craig PH, et al. A prognostic index for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Cancer. 1996;77:2267-2274.
13. Dillon MF, Mc Dermott EW, O'Doherty A, Quinn CM, Hill AD, O'Higgins N. Factors affecting successful breast conservation for ductal carcinoma in situ. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:1618-1628.
14. Cheng L, Al-Kaisi NK, Gordon NH, Liu AY, Gebrail F, Shenk RR. Relationship between the size and margin status of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast and residual disease. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997;89:1356-1360.
15. Neuschatz AC, DiPetrillo T, Steinhoff M, et al. The value of breast lumpectomy margin assessment as a predictor of residual tumor burden in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Cancer. 2002;94:1917-1924.
16. Sigal-Zafrani B, Lewis JS, Clough KB, et al. Histological margin assessment for breast ductal carcinoma in situ: precision and implications. Mod Pathol. 2004;17:81-88.
17. Apple SK. Variability in gross and microscopic pathology reporting in excisional biopsies of breast cancer tissue. Breast J. 2006;12:145-149.
18. Consensus conference on the classification of ductal carcinoma in situ. Hum Pathol. 1997;28:1221-1225.
19. Lagios MD, Bennington JL. Protocol for the pathologic examination and tissue processing of the mammographically directed breast biopsy. Pathology(Phila). 1992;1:23-45.
20. Bland JM, Altman DG. Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference against standard method is misleading. Lancet. 1995;346:1085-1087.
21. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:135-160.
22. Ottesen GL, Graversen HP, Blichert-Toft M, Christensen IJ, Andersen JA. Carcinoma in situ of the female breast: 10 year follow-up results of a prospective nationwide study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2000;62:197-210.
23. Mokbel K, Cutuli B. Heterogeneity of ductal carcinoma in situ and its effects on management. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7:756-765.
24. Holland R, Hendriks JH. Microcalcifications associated with ductal carcinoma in situ: mammographic-pathologic correlation. Semin Diagn Pathol. 1994;11:181-192.
25. Holland R, Hendriks JH, Vebeek AL, Mravunac M, Schuurmans Stekhoven JH. Extent, distribution, and mammographic/histological correlations of breast ductal carcinoma in situ. Lancet. 1990;335:519-522.
26. Tan PH, Ho JT, Ng EH, et al. Pathologic-radiologic correlations in screendetected ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: findings of the Singapore breast screening project. Int J Cancer. 2000;90:231-236.
27. Tabar L, Gad A, Parsons WC, Neeland DB. Mammographic appearances of in situ carcinoma. In: Silverstein MJ, ed. Ductal Carcinoma In Situ ofthe Breast. 1st ed. New York, NY: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Publishers; 1997:95-110.
28. Faverly D, Holland R, Burgers L. An original stereomicroscopic analysis of the mammary glandular tree. Virchows Arch A Pathol Anat Histopathol. 1992;421:115-119.