Detection Rate Of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Research Articles

Added Value of Breast MRI for Preoperative Diagnosis of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: Diagnostic Performance on 362 Patients

IntroductionThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the added value of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in preoperative diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). We reviewed our institution database of 3499 consecutive patients treated for breast cancer. Patients and MethodsA total of 362 patients with histologically proven DCIS were selected from the institutional database. Of these, 245 (67.7%) preoperatively underwent conventional imaging (CI) (mammography/ultrasonography) (CI group), and 117 (32.3%) underwent CI and dynamic MRI (CI + MRI group). The pathology of surgical specimens served as a reference standard. The Mann-Whitney U, χ2 test, and Spearman correlation coefficient were performed. ResultsThe CI + MRI group showed a sensitivity of 98.5% with an increase of 10.1% compared with the CI group to detect pure DCIS. Dynamic MRI identified 19.7% (n = 13) additional pure DCIS compared with CI. In the CI + MRI group, a single (1.5%) false negative was reported, whereas in the CI group, 11 (11.6%) false negatives were reported. Moreover, the CI + MRI group showed a sensitivity of 98.0% to detect DCIS + small invasive component. In this group, dynamic MRI identified 21.6% (n = 11) additional DCIS and a single (2.0%) false negative compared with the CI group, whereas in the CI group, 7 (4.7%) false negatives were reported. MRI and histopathologically measured lesion sizes, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System MRI assessment categories, and enhancement signal intensity curve types showed a significant correlation. The MRI detection rate of DCIS increased significantly with increasing nuclear grade. ConclusionsPreoperative breast MRI showed a better accuracy then CI in preoperative diagnosis for both pure DCIS and DCIS + small invasive component with a precise assessment of lesion size. This can provide a more appropriate management of DCIS patients.

Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: morphological and molecular features implicated in progression.

The spread of mammographic screening programmes around the world, including in developing countries, has substantially contributed to the diagnosis of small non-palpable lesions, which has increased the detection rate of DCIS (ductal carcinoma in situ). DCIS is heterogeneous in several ways, such as its clinical presentation, morphology and genomic profile. Excellent outcomes have been reported; however, many questions remain unanswered. For example, which patients groups are overtreated and could instead benefit from minimal intervention and which patient groups require a more traditional multidisciplinary approach. The development of a comprehensive integrated analysis that includes the radiological, morphological and genetic aspects of DCIS is necessary to answer these questions. This review focuses on discussing the significant findings about the morphological and molecular features of DCIS and its progression that have helped to uncover the biological and genetic heterogeneity of this disease. The knowledge gained in recent years might allow the development of tailored clinical management for women with DCIS in the future.

Digital Mammography Screening: Association between Detection Rate and Nuclear Grade of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ

To determine the relationship between overall detection rates of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and the specific detection rates of low-, intermediate-, and high-grade DCIS at the start of a digital mammography screening program. The study was approved by the local ethics board and did not require informed consent. Data were included of the first round of digital mammography examinations, performed in 17 screening units in women aged 50-69 years from 2005 to 2008. Grading was provided by the cancer registry for 1018 DCIS cases. The association between the overall cancer detection rate (cases per 100 women screened) and the separate cancer detection rate for invasive cancers and for DCIS was assessed. Likewise, the total DCIS cancer detection rate was separated into rates for low, intermediate, and high grades. Spearman rank correlations were used for analysis. The overall cancer detection rate correlated with both the cancer detection rate of invasive cancers and the cancer detection rate of DCIS (r = 0.96 and r = 0.88, respectively; P < .001 for both). The cancer detection rate of total DCIS with grading varied among screening units (range, 0.05-0.25), it was borderline not significantly correlated with the cancer detection rate of low-grade DCIS (range, 0.004-0.05; r = 0.49; P = .052), and it showed significant correlations with higher cancer detection rate of intermediate-grade DCIS (range, 0.02-0.12; r = 0.89; P < .001) and of high-grade DCIS (range, 0.03-0.11; r = 0.88; P < .001). This study demonstrates that high overall cancer detection rates in digital mammography screening are related to high detection rates of invasive cancers, as well as DCIS. Increases in the detection rates of DCIS were not driven by disproportionate increments of the slowly progressive low-grade subtype but rather by increased rates of intermediate- and high-grade subtypes that carry a higher risk of transition to invasive cancers.

Assessment of false-negative cases of breast MR imaging in women with a familial or genetic predisposition

In order to assess the characteristics of malignant breast lesions those were not detected during screening by MR imaging. In the Dutch MRI screening study(MRISC), a non-randomized prospective multicenter study,women with high familial risk or a genetic predisposition for breast cancer were screened once a year by mammography and MRI and every 6 months with a clinical breast examination (CBE). The false-negative MR examinations were subject of this study and were retrospectively reviewed by two experienced radiologists. From November 1999 until March 2006, 2,157 women were eligible for study analyses. Ninety-seven malignant breast tumors were detected, including 19 DCIS (20%). In 22 patients with a malignant lesion, the MRI was assessed as BI-RADS 1 or 2. One patient was excluded because the examinations were not available for review. Forty-three percent (9/21) of the false-negative MR cases concerned pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or DCIS with invasive foci, in eight of them no enhancement was seen at the review. In six patients the features of malignancy were missed or misinterpreted.Small lesion size (n = 3), extensive diffuse contrast enhancement of the breast parenchyma (n = 2),and a technically inadequate examination (n = 1) were other causes of the missed diagnosis. A major part of the false-negative MR diagnoses concerned non-enhancing DCIS, underlining the necessity of screening not only with MRI but also with mammography. Improvement of MRI scanning protocols may increase the detection rate of DCIS. The missed and misinterpreted cases are reflecting the learning curve of a multicenter study.

Is there an indication for sentinel node biopsy in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast? A review

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast is defined as a proliferation of malignant epithelial cells within breast ducts without evidence of invasion through the basement membrane. The detection rate of DCIS of the breast has dramatically increased since the mid-1980s as the result of the widespread use of screening mammography. DCIS currently represents about 15–25% of all breast cancers detected in population screening programmes. Although inherently a non-invasive disease, occult invasion with the potential of lymph node metastases may occur. Where performing an axillary lymph node dissection-or-not for DCIS used to be an important dilemma, the same now holds for the sentinel node biopsy. This article reviews the potential role of the sentinel node biopsy (SNB) in patients with DCIS. We conclude that based on the current literature, there is in general no role for a SNB in DCIS. A SNB should only be considered in patients with an excisional biopsy diagnosis of high risk DCIS (grade III with palpable mass or large tumour area by imaging) as well as in patients undergoing mastectomy after a core or excisional biopsy diagnosis of DCIS, although SNB may be contraindicated in many of the latter patients because of lesion size and/or multifocality. Even in these patients the value of a positive SN, containing mostly isolated tumour cells, is questionable.

Ductal carcinoma in situ—an imaging challenge

Lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) is a marker of increased risk for later development of lobular or ductal invasive carcinomas. It presents with multifocal, multicentric and bilateral growth. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a heterogeneous precursor of later invasive carcinoma. It usually presents unilaterally, unifocally or multifocally and spreads within at least one segment. The frequency of necrosis and calcifications is highest in DCIS grade 3. Calcifications are the hallmark of DCIS in mammography. Instead of considerable categorical overlap, fine linear and linear branching calcifications suggest DCIS grade 3 with comedo necrosis. Pleomorphic (granular) calcification owing to necrosis suggests DCIS grade 2. Punctuate or amorphous flecks are typical for secretory calcifications in DCIS grade 1. Clustered calcifications represent cancerisation of the lobule, linear distribution reflects ductal spread. Linear distribution or segmental distribution of multiple calcified particles is more specific than morphology of a single particle. Detection rate of DCIS by ultrasound is low without knowledge of focal DCIS at marunlography. By contrast, targeted ultrasound of suspected DCIS finds frequently hypoechoic lesions that are similar to small fibroadenoma, papilloma, ductectasia, microcyst or invasive cancer. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) diagnosis of DCIS affords high spatial resolution and is based on different interpretation criteria from those of invasive carcinoma. Clumped, linear, ductal and segmental enhancement is suspicious of DCIS even with slow or medium initial slopes and persistent late enhancement. Diagnostic accuracy is similar to mammography if used in pre-selected cases. Some DCIS do not enhance at all. To date, epidemiological data do not provide conclusive evidence that an aggressive diagnosis and treatment of DCIS leads to a decreasing breastspecific or overall mortality rate in comparison with a wait and watch strategy.