Correlation between imaging and pathology in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast

World Journal of Surgical Oncology

Lex D Groote²  Peter C Baas¹  Jaap de Vries⁴  Wendy J Post⁵  Ruud M Pijnappel³  Marnix AJ de Roos⁴ 

[1]Department of Surgery, Martini Hospital Groningen, van Swietenlaan 4, PO Box 30033, 9700 RM Groningen, The Netherlands

[2]Department of Pathology, Martini Hospital Groningen, van Swietenlaan 4, PO Box 30033, 9700 RM Groningen, The Netherlands

[3]Department of Radiology, Martini Hospital Groningen, van Swietenlaan 4, PO Box 30033, 9700 RM Groningen, The Netherlands

[4]Department of Surgical Oncology, Groningen University Hospital, Hanzeplein 1, PO Box 30001,9700 RB Groningen The Netherlands

[5]Deparment of Medical Technology Assessment, Groningen University Hospital, Hanzeplein 1, PO Box 30001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands

关键词: breast;    pathological classification;    prediction;    size;    imaging;    ductal carcinoma in situ;   

Others  :  1207487
DOI  :  10.1186/1477-7819-2-4

 received in 2003-12-09, accepted in 2004-03-12,  发布年份 2004

【 摘 要 】

Background

It is helpful in planning treatment for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) if the size and grade could be reliably predicted from the mammography. The aims of this study were to determine if the type of calcification can be best used to predict histopathological grade from the mammograms, to examine the association of mammographic appearance of DCIS with grade and to assess the correlation between mammographic size and pathological size.

Methods

Mammographic films and pathological slides of 115 patients treated for DCIS between 1986 and 2000 were reviewed and reclassified by a single radiologist and a single pathologist respectively. Prediction models for the European Pathologist Working Group (EPWG) and Van Nuys classifications were generated by ordinal regression. The association between mammographic appearance and grade was tested with the χ²-test. Relation of mammographic size with pathological size was established using linear regression. The relation was expressed by the correlation coefficient (r).

Results

The EPWG classification was correctly predicted in 68%, and the Van Nuys classification in 70% if DCIS was presented as microcalcifications. High grade was associated with presence of linear calcifications (p < 0.001). Association between mammograhic- and pathological size was better for DCIS presented as microcalcifications (r = 0.89, p < 0.001) than for DCIS presented as a density (r = 0.77, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Prediction of histopathological grade of DCIS presenting as microcalcifications is comparable using the Van Nuys and EPWG classification. There is no strict association of mammographic appearance with histopathological grade. There is a better linear relation between mammographic- and pathological size of DCIS presented as microcalcifications than as a density, although both relations are statistically significant.

【 授权许可】

   
2004 de Roos et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original URL.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Schwartz GF, Solin LJ, Olivotto IA, Ernster VL, Pressman PI, and the consensus conference committee: The consensus conference on the treatment of in situ ductal carcinoma of the breast. Hum Pathol 2000, 31:131-139.
• [2]Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Craig PH, Waisman JR, Lewinsky BJ, Colburn WJ, Poller DN: A prognostic index for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Cancer 1996, 77:2267-2274.
• [3]Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Groshen S, Waisman JR, Lewinsky BS, Martino S, Gamagami P, Colburn WJ: The influence of margin width on local control of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. New Engl J Med 1999, 340:1455-1461.
• [4]Shoker BS, Sloane JP: DCIS grading schemes and implications. Histopathology 1999, 35:393-400.
• [5]Holland R, Peterse JL, Millis RR, Eusebi V, Faverly D, van de Vijver Holland MJ, Zafrani B: Ductal carcinoma in situ: a proposal for a new classification. Semin Diagn Pathol 1994, 11:167-180.
• [6]Silverstein MJ, Poller DN, Waisman JR, Colburn WJ, Barth A, Gierson ED, Lewinsky B, Gamagami P, Slamon DJ: Prognostic classification of breast ductal carcinoma in situ. Lancet 1995, 345:1154-1157.
• [7]Wärnberg FH, Nordgren H, Bergh J, Holmberg L: Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast from a population-defined cohort: an evaluation of new histopatological classification systems. Eur J Cancer 1999, 35:714-720.
• [8]Holland R, Hendriks JHCL, Verbeek ALM, Mravunac M, Schuurmans Stekhoven JH: Extent, distribution, and mammographic/histological correlations of breast ductal carcinoma in situ. Lancet 1990, 335:519-522.
• [9]Holland R, Hendriks JHCL: Microcalcifications associated with ductal carcinoma in situ: mammographic-pathologic correlation. Semin Diagn Pathol 1994, 11:181-192.
• [10]Coombs JH, Hubbard E: Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: correlation of pathologic and mammographic features with the extent of disease. Am Surg 1997, 63:1079-1086.
• [11]Stomper P, Conolly J, Meyer J, Harris J: Clinically occult ductal carcinoma in situ detected with mammography: analysis of 100 cases with radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 1989, 172:235-241.
• [12]Stomper PC, Connolly JL: Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: correlation between mammographic calcification and tumor subtype. Am J Roentgen 1992, 159:483-485.
• [13]Evans A, Pinder S, Ellis I, Sibbering M, Elston CW, Poller DN, Wilson R: Screening-detected and symptomatic ductal carcinoma in situ: mammographic features with pathologic correlation. Radiology 1994, 191:237-240.
• [14]Evans A, Pinder S, Wilson R, Sibbering M, Poller D, Elston C, Ellis I: Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: correlation between mammographic and pathologic findings. Am J Roentgen 1994, 162:1307-1311.
• [15]Dinkel H, Gassel A, 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, 73:938-944.
• [16]Hermann G, Keller R, Drossman S, Caravella BA, Tartter P, Panetta RA, Bleiweiss IJ: Mammographic pattern of microcalcifications in the preoperative diagnosis of comedo ductal carcinoma in situ: histopathologic correlation. Can Assoc Radiol J 1999, 50:235-240.
• [17]Slanetz PJ, Giardino AA, Oyama T, Koerner FC, Halpern EF, Moore RH, Kopans DB: Mammographic appearance of ductal carcinoma in situ does not reliably predict histologic subtype. Breast J 2001, 7:417-421.
• [18]Pijnappel RM: The diagnosis of nonpalpable breast lesions. In PhD Thesis. Utrecht, University of Utrecht; 2002.
• [19]Verkooijen HM, Peeters PHM, Borel Rinkes IHM, Mali WPThM, Van Vroonhoven ThJMV: Diagnostic accuracy of stereotactic large-core needle biopsy for nonpalpable breast disease: results of a multcenter prospective study with 95% surgical confirmation. Int J Cancer 2002, 99:853-859.