Radiologic-pathologic correlation of ductal carcinoma in situ

Radiographics

Volumn 30, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 1183-1198

  Yamada, Takayuki ^a   Mori, Naoko ^a   Watanabe, Mika ^a   Kimijima, Izo ^b   Okumoto, Tadayuki ^a   Seiji, Kazumasa ^a   Takahashi, Shoki ^a  

^a TOHOKU UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

^b FUKUSHIMA MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST TUMOR; CALCINOSIS; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; METHODOLOGY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PAGET NIPPLE DISEASE; STATISTICS;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CALCINOSIS; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MAMMOGRAPHY; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 77957732428     PISSN: 02715333     EISSN: 15271323     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/rg.305095073     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Sumner WE 3rd, Koniaris LG, Snell SE, et al. Results of 23,810 cases of ductal carcinoma-in-situ. Ann Surg Oncol 2007;14(5):1638-1643.
2. Lagios MD. Heterogeneity of duct carcinoma in situ (DCIS): relationship of grade and subtype analysis to local recurrence and risk of invasive transformation. Cancer Lett 1995;90(1):97-102.
3. Silverstein MJ, Poller DN, Waisman JR, et al. Prognostic classification of breast ductal carcinoma-in-situ. Lancet 1995;345(8958):1154-1157.
4. Evans A, Pinder S, Wilson R, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: correlation between mammographic and pathologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994;162(6):1307-1311.
5. Yang WT, Tse GMK. Sonographic, mammographic, and histopathologic correlation of symptomatic ductal carcinoma in situ. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004; 182(1):101-110.
6. Barreau B, de Mascarel I, Feuga C, et al. Mammography of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: review of 909 cases with radiographic-pathologic correlations. Eur J Radiol 2005;54(1):55-61.
7. Dinkel HP, Gassel AM, Tschammler A. Is the appearance of microcalcifications on mammography useful in predicting histological grade of malignancy in ductal cancer in situ? Br J Radiol 2000;73(873): 938-944.
8. Lee KS, Han BH, Chun YK, Kim HS, Kim EE. Correlation between mammographic manifestations and averaged histopathologic nuclear grade using prognosis-predict scoring system for the prognosis of ductal carcinoma in situ. Clin Imaging 1999;23 (6):339-346.
9. Vag T, Baltzer PA, Renz DM, et al. Diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ using contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance mammography compared with conventional mammography. Clin Imaging 2008;32 (6):438-442.
10. Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology 2004;233(3):830-849.
11. Orel SG, Mendonca MH, Reynolds C, Schnall MD, Solin LJ, Sullivan DC. MR imaging of ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiology 1997;202(2):413-420.
12. Viehweg P, Lampe D, Buchmann J, Heywang-Köbrunner SH. In situ and minimally invasive breast cancer: morphologic and kinetic features on contrast-enhanced MR imaging. MAGMA 2000; 11(3):129-137.
13. Neubauer H, Li M, Kuehne-Heid R, Schneider A, Kaiser WA. High grade and non-high grade ductal carcinoma in situ on dynamic MR mammography: characteristic findings for signal increase and morphological pattern of enhancement. Br J Radiol 2003;76(901):3-12.
14. Groves AM, Warren RM, Godward S, Rajan PS. Characterization of pure high-grade DCIS on magnetic resonance imaging using the evolving breast MR lexicon terminology: can it be differentiated from pure invasive disease? Magn Reson Imaging 2005;23(6):733-738.
15. Oshida K, Nagashima T, Ueda T, et al. Pharmacokinetic analysis of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast using dynamic MR mammography. Eur Radiol 2005;15(7):1353-1360.
16. Jansen SA, Newstead GM, Abe H, Shimauchi A, Schmidt RA, Karczmar GS. Pure ductal carcinoma in situ: kinetic and morphologic MR characteristics compared with mammographic appearance and nuclear grade. Radiology 2007;245(3):684-691.
17. Kuhl C. The current status of breast MR imaging. Part I. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice. Radiology 2007;244(2):356-378.
18. Rosen EL, Smith-Foley SA, DeMartini WB, Eby PR, Peacock S, Lehman CD. BI-RADS MRI enhancement characteristics of ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast J 2007;13(6):545-550.
19. Esserman LJ, Kumar AS, Herrera AF, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging captures the biology of ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol 2006;24(28): 4603-4610.
20. Van Goethem M, Schelfout K, Kersschot E, et al. Comparison of MRI features of different grades of DCIS and invasive carcinoma of the breast. JBR-BTR 2005;88(5):225-232.
21. Menell JH, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, Abramson AF, Brogi E, Liberman L. Determination of the presence and extent of pure ductal carcinoma in situ by mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Breast J 2005;11(6):382-390.
22. Facius M, Renz DM, Neubauer H, et al. Characteristics of ductal carcinoma in situ in magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Imaging 2007;31(6):394-400.
23. Shimauchi A, Yamada T, Sato A, et al. Comparison of MDCT and MRI for evaluating the intraductal component of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;187(2):322-329.
24. Inoue M, Sano T, Watai R, et al. Dynamic multidetector CT of breast tumors: diagnostic features and comparison with conventional techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181(3):679-686.
25. Kang DK, Kim MJ, Jung YS, Yim H. Clinical application of multidetector row computed tomography in patient with breast cancer. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2008;32(4):583-598.
26. Douglas-Jones AG, Gupta SK, Attanoos RL, Morgan JM, Mansel RE. A critical appraisal of six modern classifications of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast (DCIS): correlation with grade of associated invasive carcinoma. Histopathology 1996;29(5): 397-409.
27. Bethwaite P, Smith N, Delahunt B, Kenwright D. Reproducibility of new classification schemes for the pathology of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Clin Pathol 1998;51(6):450-454.
28. Douglas-Jones AG, Morgan JM, Appleton MA, et al. Consistency in the observation of features used to classify duct carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast. J Clin Pathol 2000;53(8):596-602.
29. Consensus Conference Committee.Consensus conference on the classification of ductal carcinoma in situ. Cancer 1997;80(9):1798-1802.
30. Wright B, Shumak R. Part II. Medical imaging of ductal carcinoma in situ. Curr Probl Cancer 2000; 24(3):113-124.
31. Stomper PC, Connolly JL, Meyer JE, Harris JR. Clinically occult ductal carcinoma in situ detected with mammography: analysis of 100 cases with radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 1989;172 (1):235-241.
32. Ikeda DM, Andersson I. Ductal carcinoma in situ: atypical mammographic appearances. Radiology 1989;172(3):661-666.
33. Sekine K, Tsunoda-Shimizu H, Kikuchi M, Saida Y, Kawasaki T, Suzuki K. DCIS showing architectural distortion on the screening mammogram: comparison of mammographic and pathological findings. Breast Cancer 2007;14(3):281-284.
34. Günhan-Bilgen I, Memiş A, Ustün EE, Ozdemir N, Erhan Y. Sclerosing adenosis: mammographic and ultrasonographic findings with clinical and histopathological correlation. Eur J Radiol 2002;44(3): 232-238.
35. Slanetz PJ, Giardino AA, Oyama T, et al. Mammographic appearance of ductal carcinoma in situ does not reliably predict histologic subtype. Breast J 2001;7(6):417-421.
36. Stomper PC, Connolly JL. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: correlation between mammographic calcification and tumor subtype. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992;159(3):483-485.
37. Buadu LD, Murakami J, Murayama S, et al. Breast lesions: correlation of contrast medium enhancement patterns on MR images with histopathologic findings and tumor angiogenesis. Radiology 1996; 200(3):639-649.
38. Engels K, Fox SB, Whitehouse RM, Gatter KC, Harris AL. Distinct angiogenic patterns are associated with high-grade in situ ductal carcinomas of the breast. J Pathol 1997;181(2):207-212.
39. Heffelfinger SC, Yassin R, Miller MA, Lower E. Vascularity of proliferative breast disease and carcinoma in situ correlates with histological features. Clin Cancer Res 1996;2(11):1873-1878.
40. Bose S, Lesser ML, Norton L, Rosen PP. Immunophenotype of intraductal carcinoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1996;120(1):81-85.
41. Guidi AJ, Fischer L, Harris JR, Schnitt SJ. Micro-vessel density and distribution in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86 (8):614-619.
42. Nguyen M, Lee MC, Wang JL, et al. The human myoepithelial cell displays a multifaceted anti-angiogenic phenotype. Oncogene 2000;19(31): 3449-3459.
43. Rosen PP. Intraductal carcinoma. In: Rosen PP, ed. Breast pathology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2009; 285-357.
44. Man YG. Focal degeneration of aged or injured myoepithelial cells and the resultant auto-immunoreactions are trigger factors for breast tumor invasion. Med Hypotheses 2007;69(6):1340-1357.
45. Kuroki Y, Nasu K, Kuroki S, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of breast cancer with the sensitivity encoding technique: analysis of the apparent diffusion coefficient value. Magn Reson Med Sci 2004; 3(2):79-85.
46. Woodhams R, Matsunaga K, Iwabuchi K, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of malignant breast tumors: the usefulness of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value and ADC map for the detection of malignant breast tumors and evaluation of cancer extension. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2005;29(5): 644-649.
47. Yabuuchi H, Matsuo Y, Okafuji T, et al. Enhanced mass on contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging: Lesion characterization using combination of dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR images. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008;28(5):1157-1165.
48. Park MJ, Cha ES, Kang BJ, Ihn YK, Baik JH. The role of diffusion-weighted imaging and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values for breast tumors. Korean J Radiol 2007;8(5):390-396.
49. Kvistad KA, Rydland J, Vainio J, et al. Breast lesions: evaluation with dynamic contrast-enhanced T1- weighted MR imaging and with T2*-weighted first-pass perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 2000;216 (2):545-553.
50. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system atlas (BI-RADS atlas). Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003.
51. Liberman L, Morris EA, Lee MJ, et al. Breast lesions detected on MR imaging: features and positive predictive value. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179 (1):171-178.
52. Yuen S, Uematsu T, Masako K, Uchida Y, Nishimura T. Segmental enhancement on breast MR images: differential diagnosis and diagnostic strategy. Eur Radiol 2008;18(10):2067-2075.
53. Raza S, Vallejo M, Chikarmane SA, Birdwell RL. Pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a range of MRI features. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;191(3):689-699.
54. Morakkabati-Spitz N, Leutner C, Schild H, Traeber F, Kuhl C. Diagnostic usefulness of segmental and linear enhancement in dynamic breast MRI. Eur Radiol 2005;15(9):2010-2017.
55. Harada-Shoji N, Yamada T, Ishida T, et al. Usefulness of lesion image mapping with multidetector-row helical computed tomography using a dedicated skin marker in breast-conserving surgery. Eur Radiol 2009;19(4):868-874.