Clinical and Imaging Characteristics of Contrast-enhanced Mammography and MRI to Distinguish Microinvasive Carcinoma from Ductal Carcinoma In situ

Abstract

Rationale and ObjectivesThe prognosis of ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion (DCISM) is more similar to that of small invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) than to pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). It is particularly important to accurately distinguish between DCISM and DCIS. The present study aims to compare the clinical and imaging characteristics of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) between DCISM and pure DCIS, and to identify predictive factors of microinvasive carcinoma, which may contribute to a comprehensive understanding of DCISM in clinical diagnosis and support surveillance strategies, such as surgery, radiation, and other treatment decisions. Materials and MethodsForty-seven female patients diagnosed with DCIS were included in the study from May 2019 to August 2023. Patients were further divided into two groups based on pathological diagnosis: DCIS and DCISM. Clinical and imaging characteristics of these two groups were analyzed statistically. The independent clinical risk factors were selected using multivariate logistic regression and used to establish the logistic model [Logit(P)]. The diagnostic performance of independent predictors was assessed and compared using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and DeLong's test. ResultsIn CEM, the maximum cross-sectional area (CSAmax), the percentage signal difference between the enhancing lesion and background in the craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique projection (%RSCC, and %RSMLO) were found to be significantly higher for DCISM compared to DCIS (p = 0.001; p < 0.001; p = 0.008). Additionally, there were noticeable statistical differences in the patterns of enhancement morphological distribution (EMD) and internal enhancement pattern (IEP) between DCIS and DCISM (p = 0.047; p = 0.008). In MRI, only CSAmax (p = 0.012) and IEP (p = 0.020) showed significant statistical differences. The multivariate regression analysis suggested that CSAmax (in CEM or MR) and %RSCC were independent predictors of DCISM (all p < 0.05). The area under the curve (AUC) of CSAmax (CEM), %RSCC (CEM), Logit(P) (CEM), and CSAmax (MR) were 0.764, 0.795, 0.842, and 0.739, respectively. There were no significant differences in DeLong's test for these values (all p > 0.10). DCISM was significantly associated with high nuclear grade, comedo type, high axillary lymph node (ALN) metastasis, and high Ki-67 positivity compared to DCIS (all p < 0.05). ConclusionThe tumor size (CSAmax), enhancement index (%RS), and internal enhancement pattern (IEP) were highly indicative of DCISM. DCISM tends to express more aggressive pathological features, such as high nuclear grade, comedo-type necrosis, ALN metastasis, and Ki-67 overexpression. As with MRI, CEM has the capability to help predict when DCISM is accompanying DCIS.