Us appearance of ductal carcinoma in situ

Radiographics

Volumn 33, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 213-228

  Wang, Lilian C ^a   Sullivan, Megan ^b   Du, Hongyan ^c   Feldman, Marina I ^d   Mendelson, Ellen B ^a  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Prentice Women's Hospital   (United States)

^c NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY HEALTHSYSTEM   (United States)

^d Department of Radiology   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; BREAST TUMOR; CALCINOSIS; CARCINOMA IN SITU; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; ECHOGRAPHY; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; PAGET NIPPLE DISEASE;

ALGORITHMS; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CALCINOSIS; CARCINOMA IN SITU; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY;

EID: 84872552715     PISSN: 02715333     EISSN: 15271323     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/rg.331125092     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Schnitt SJ, Silen W, Sadowsky NL, Connolly JL, Harris JR. Ductal carcinoma in situ (intraductal carcinoma) of the breast. N Engl J Med 1988;318(14): 898-903.
2. Dershaw DD, Abramson A, Kinne DW. Ductal carcinoma in situ: mammographic fndings and clinical implications. Radiology 1989;170(2):411-415.
3. Stomper PC, Connolly JL, Meyer JE, Harris JR. Clinically occult ductal carcinoma in situ detected with mammography: analysis of 100 cases with ra-diologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 1989;172 (1):235-241.
4. Li CI, Daling JR, Malone KE. Age-specifc incidence rates of in situ breast carcinomas by histologic type, 1980 to 2001. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14(4):1008-1011.
5. Ikeda DM, Andersson I. Ductal carcinoma in situ: atypical mammographic appearances. Radiology 1989;172(3):661-666.
6. Rizzatto G, Chersevani R, Abbona M, Lombardo VL, Macorig D. High-resolution sonography of breast carcinoma. Eur J Radiol 1997;24(1):11-19.
7. Hashimoto BE, Kramer DJ, Picozzi VJ. High detection rate of breast ductal carcinoma in situ calcif-cations on mammographically directed high-resolution sonography. J Ultrasound Med 2001;20(5): 501-508.
8. Stavros AT. US of ductal carcinoma in situ. In: Silverstein MJ, ed. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, 2002; 128-169.
9. Garra BS, Cespedes EI, Ophir J, et al. Elastography of breast lesions: initial clinical results. Radiology 1997;202(1):79-86.
10. Regner DM, Hesley GK, Hangiandreou NJ, et al. Breast lesions: evaluation with US strain imaging- clinical experience of multiple observers. Radiology 2006;238(2):425-437.
11. Bercoff J, Tanter M, Fink M. Supersonic shear imaging: a new technique for soft tissue elasticity mapping. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 2004;51(4):396-409.
12. Tanter M, Bercoff J, Athanasiou A, et al. Quantitative assessment of breast lesion viscoelasticity: initial clinical results using supersonic shear imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol 2008;34(9):1373-1386.
13. Krouskop TA, Wheeler TM, Kallel F, Garra BS, Hall T. Elastic moduli of breast and prostate tissues under compression. Ultrason Imaging 1998;20(4): 260-274.
14. Itoh A, Ueno E, Tohno E, et al. Breast disease: clinical application of US elastography for diagnosis. Radiology 2006;239(2):341-350.
15. Evans A, Whelehan P, Thomson K, et al. Quantitative shear wave ultrasound elastography: initial experience in solid breast masses. Breast Cancer Res 2010;12(6):R104.
16. Evans A, Whelehan P, Thomson K, et al. Differentiating benign from malignant solid breast masses: value of shear wave elastography according to lesion stiffness combined with greyscale ultrasound according to BI-RADS classifcation. Br J Cancer 2012;107(2):224-229.
17. Berg WA, Cosgrove DO, Doré CJ, et al. Shear-wave elastography improves the specifcity of breast US: the BE1 multinational study of 939 masses. Radiology 2012;262(2):435-449.
18. Abe H, Schmidt RA, Shah RN, et al. MR-directed ("second-look") ultrasound examination for breast lesions detected initially on MRI: MR and sono-graphic fndings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;194 (2):370-377.
19. Soo MS, Baker JA, Rosen EL. Sonographic detection and sonographically guided biopsy of breast microcalcifcations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180 (4):941-948.
20. Soo MS, Baker JA, Rosen EL, Vo TT. Sonographi-cally guided biopsy of suspicious microcalcifcations of the breast: a pilot study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;178(4):1007-1015.
21. Liberman L, Feng TL, Dershaw DD, Morris EA, Abramson AF. US-guided core breast biopsy: use and cost-effectiveness. Radiology 1998;208(3): 717-723.
22. Rubin E, Mennemeyer ST, Desmond RA, et al. Reducing the cost of diagnosis of breast carcinoma: impact of ultrasound and imaging-guided biopsies on a clinical breast practice. Cancer 2001;91(2): 324-332.
23. Moon WK, Im JG, Koh YH, Noh DY, Park IA. US of mammographically detected clustered microcal-cifcations. Radiology 2000;217(3):849-854.
24. Yang WT, Tse GM. Sonographic, mammographic, and histopathologic correlation of symptomatic duc-tal carcinoma in situ. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004; 182(1):101-110.
25. Park JS, Park YM, Kim EK, et al. Sonographic fnd-ings of high-grade and non-high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Ultrasound Med 2010; 29(12):1687-1697.
26. Yang WT, Suen M, Ahuja A, Metreweli C. In vivo demonstration of microcalcifcation in breast cancer using high resolution ultrasound. Br J Radiol 1997; 70(835):685-690.
27. Yu PC, Lee YW, Chou FF, et al. Clustered microcal-cifcations of intermediate concern detected on digital mammography: ultrasound assessment. Breast 2011;20(6):495-500.
28. Moon WK, Myung JS, Lee YJ, Park IA, Noh DY, Im JG. US of ductal carcinoma in situ. RadioGraphics 2002; 22(2):269-280; discussion 280-281.
29. Mesurolle B, El-Khoury M, Khetani K, Abdullah N, Joseph L, Kao E. Mammographically non-calcifed ductal carcinoma in situ: sonographic features with pathological correlation in 35 patients. Clin Radiol 2009;64(6):628-636.
30. Silverstein MJ, Poller DN, Waisman JR, et al. Prognostic classifcation of breast ductal carcinoma-in-situ. Lancet 1995;345(8958):1154-1157.
31. Cho KR, Seo BK, Kim CH, et al. Non-calcifed ductal carcinoma in situ: ultrasound and mammo-graphic fndings correlated with histological fnd-ings. Yonsei Med J 2008;49(1):103-110.
32. Kim JH, Ko ES, Kim Y, Han H, Sohn JH, Choe H. Noncalcifed ductal carcinoma in situ: imaging and histologic fndings in 36 tumors. J Ultrasound Med 2009;28(7):903-910.
33. Izumori A, Takebe K, Sato A. Ultrasound fndings and histological features of ductal carcinoma in situ detected by ultrasound examination alone. Breast Cancer 2010;17(2):136-141.
34. Shin HJ, Kim HH, Kim SM, Kwon GY, Gong G, Cho OK. Screening-detected and symptomatic duc-tal carcinoma in situ: differences in the sonographic and pathologic features. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008; 190(2):516-525.
35. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008;299(18):2151-2163.
36. Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, et al; ACRIN 6666 Investigators. Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA 2012;307(13): 1394-1404.
37. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Occult cancer in women with dense breasts: detection with screening US-diagnostic yield and tumor characteristics. Radiology 1998;207(1):191-199.
38. Buchberger W, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Springer P, Obrist P, Dünser M. Incidental fndings on sonog-raphy of the breast: clinical signifcance and diagnostic workup. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;173 (4):921-927.
39. Crystal P, Strano SD, Shcharynski S, Koretz MJ. Using sonography to screen women with mam-mographically dense breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181(1):177-182.
40. Berg WA, Gilbreath PL. Multicentric and multifo-cal cancer: whole-breast US in preoperative evaluation. Radiology 2000;214(1):59-66.
41. DiPiro PJ, Meyer JE, Denison CM, Frenna TH, Harvey SC, Smith DN. Image-guided core breast biopsy of ductal carcinoma in situ presenting as a non-calcifed abnormality. Eur J Radiol 1999;30(3): 231-236.
42. Berg WA, Sechtin AG, Marques H, Zhang Z. Cystic breast masses and the ACRIN 6666 experience. Radiol Clin North Am 2010;48(5):931-987.
43. Berg WA. Sonographically depicted breast clustered microcysts: is follow-up appropriate? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185(4):952-959.
44. Liberman L, Morris EA, Kim CM, et al. MR imaging fndings in the contralateral breast of women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180(2):333-341.
45. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Bieling HB, et al. MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study. Lancet 2007;370 (9586):485-492.
46. 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.
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. Meissnitzer M, Dershaw DD, Lee CH, Morris EA. Targeted ultrasound of the breast in women with abnormal MRI fndings for whom biopsy has been recommended. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193(4): 1025-1029.
51. DeMartini WB, Eby PR, Peacock S, Lehman CD. Utility of targeted sonography for breast lesions that were suspicious on MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;192(4):1128-1134.
52. LaTrenta LR, Menell JH, Morris EA, Abramson AF, Dershaw DD, Liberman L. Breast lesions detected with MR imaging: utility and histopathologic importance of identifcation with US. Radiology 2003;227(3):856-861.
53. Leung JW. Utility of second-look ultrasound in the evaluation of MRI-detected breast lesions. Semin Roentgenol 2011;46(4):260-274.