Mammographic and Ultrasonographic Findings of Invasive Ductal Carcinoma of Breast at Surin Hospital
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective: To review mammographic and ultrasonographic findings of invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) of breasts at Surin Hospital.
Research design: Descriptive retrospective study
Setting: Surin hospital
Materials and methods: Total of 80 pathologically proven cases of invasive ductal carcinoma during January 1st 2009 to December 31st 2010 were retrospectively reviewed for mammographic and ultrasonographic features.
Result: Seventy one masses in 70 patients have been detected in 80 mammography. There are 2 masses in one patient. The others, 10 patients, revealed no mass lesions on mammography; 5 patients were asymmetrical density and 5 patients were normal. However, adjunctive ultrasonography could demonstrate these lesions. The most common mammographic findings of invasive ductal carcinoma of breast cancer were abnormal mass with irregular shape (84.5%). The most common margin of masses on mammography was spiculated margin (36.6%) followed by indistinct (ill-defined) margin (32.4%). Malignant microcalcifications were found in 38 patients (47.5%) and the most common type of microcalcification was mixed type (47.3%). Mammography was better than ultrasonography in depicting microcalcifications. (38 versus 22 patients). Axillary lymphadenopathy was demonstrated in 20 patients (25 %). Ultrasonography was better than mammography in detection of masses, especially in dense breast parenchyma on mammogram. 81 masses have been demonstrated by ultrasonography. The most common ultrasonographic appearance of invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) of breast cancer was irregular shape (78.7%) and angulated margin (69.1%). Low echogenicity was the most common echo presentation of IDC (86.4%). Most frequent posterior attenuation on ultrasonography was posterior shadowing (29.6%) followed by posterior enhancement (28.4%).
Conclusion: The most common malignant mammographic feature are irregular shape (84.5%) and spiculated margin (36.6%). Multiple suggestive malignant signs such as malignant microcalcifications, axillary lymphadenopathy and skin thickening should be used to improved confidence of diagnosis. Most common ultrasonographic features of IDC are irregular mass and angular margin. The most common posterior attenuation of IDC is posterior shadowing (29.6%). Adjunctive ultrasonography is suggested to increase confidence of diagnosis.
Article Details
References
Center for Disease Control and Prevention National Cancer Data: https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/natlcancerdata.html
American Cancer Society Breast cancer Fact &figures: https://www.cancer.org/statistics/index.html
Attasara P, Srivattanakul P, Sriplung H: Cancer in Thailand vol.5 2001-2003; 7
Berg WA, Gutierrez L, Ness M, Aiver MS et al. Accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, ultrasonography and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer: Radiology 2004 Dec; 233(3): 830-849. Epub 2004 Oct 14.
Tohno E, Chapter 9 malignant breast lesion, In: Cosgrove DO, Sloane JP. Ultrasound Diagnosis of Breast Disease. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1994.
Tucker AK, Chapter 9 diagnostic mammography, In: Tucker AK. Textbook of Mammography. 1st ed. Churchill Livingstone; 1993.
Zonderland HN, Coerkamp EG, Hermans J, van de Vijver MJ, van Voorthusien AE. Diagnosis of breast cancer: contribution of ultrasonography as an adjunct to mammography: Radiology 1999; 213; 413-422.
Anderson I. Radiographic screening for breast carcinoma III: appearance of breast carcinoma and number of projections to be used at screening. Acta Radiologica Diagn 1981;22:407-420.
Cotran RS, Kumar V, Robbin SL. Robbins: Pathologic Basis of Disease. 5th ed. WB Saunders, 1994.
Gershon-Cohen J, Schorr S. The diagnostic problems of isolated, circum scribed breast tumors: AJR 1969; 106: 863-70.
Breast imaging lexicon, In D’OrsiCJ, Bassett LW, Berg WA, Feig SA et al. American College of Radiology (ACR). Illustrated breast imaging reporting and data system (BIRADS) 4th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology 2003.
Fu KL, Fu YS, Bassett LW, Cardall SY and Lopez JK. Invasive malignancies, In: Bassett LW, Jackson VP, Fu KL and Fu LS. Diagnosis of disease of the breast. 2nd ed. Elserver Saunders, Pen 2005.
Lim ET, O’Doherty A, Hill AD, Quin CM. Pathological axillary lymph nodes detected at mammographic screening: Clinical Radiology 2004 Jan; 5: 86-91
Stavros T, Thickman D, Rapp C, Dennis M, Parker S, Sisney G. Solid Breast Nodules: Use of Sonography to distinguish between Benign and Malignant lesions: Radiology 1995: 196(1); 123-134.
Lamp PM, Perry NM, Vinnicombe SJ, Well CA. Correlation Between Ultrasound Characteristics, Mammographic Findings and Histological Grade in Patient with Invasive Ductal Carcinoma of the Breast: Clinical Radiology 2000 Jan; 55(1):40-4
Rahbar G, Sie AC, Hansen GC, et al. Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: us differentiation: Radiology 1999 Dec;213(3):889-94.
Samardar P, De Paredes ES, Grimes MM. Focal Asymmetric Densities Seen at Mammography: US and Pathologic Correlation: Radiographics 2002 Jan- Feb;22(1):19-33.
Houssami N, Irwig L, Simpson JM, McKessar M, Blome S, Noakes J. Comparative sensitivity and specificity of mammography and sonography in young women with symptoms: AJR 2003 Apr; 180 (4):935-40
Rotstient AH, Neerhut PK. Ultrasound characteristics of histologically proven grade 3 invasive ductal breast carcinoma: Australas Radiol 2005 Dec;49(6):476-9.
