Correlation between ultrasound characteristics, mammographic findings and histological grade in patients with invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast.

AIM To investigate the relationship between ultrasound characteristics, mammographic findings and histological grade in cases of invasive ductal carcinoma which produce a mass on ultrasound. MATERIAL AND METHODS A retrospective review was performed of the imaging findings in 120 patients diagnosed with invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast between January 1996 and December 1997. Imaging findings were correlated with the histological grade of tumour. RESULTS High-grade tumours were significantly larger both on ultrasound and mammography (P < 0.016). A spiculated margin on mammogram was documented in 72% of low-grade tumours compared with only 24% of high-grade tumours (P = 0.001). Twenty-two per cent of low-grade tumours had a poorly defined margin on mammography compared with 66% of high-grade tumours (P = 0.001). At ultrasound, 16% of high-grade tumours (95% confidence limits 7-29%) had a well-defined margin. Acoustic enhancement was seen in 36% of high-grade tumours compared with only 9% of low and intermediate-grade tumours (P = 0.003): 22% of all tumours showed acoustic enhancement. Acoustic shadowing was seen in 71% of low-grade tumours compared with only 28% of high-grade tumours (P = 0.003). Malignant-type microcalcification was seen on mammogram in 6% of low-grade tumours compared with 31% of high-grade tumours (P = 0.045). CONCLUSION The classical appearance of a malignant breast mass as a spiculated mass on mammogram associated with acoustic shadowing on ultrasound is more typical of a low-grade tumour. In comparison, high-grade tumours are more likely to demonstrate posterior acoustic enhancement, and a proportion has a well-defined margin on ultrasound. Therefore, high-grade invasive ductal carcinoma may paradoxically display similar imaging features to a benign breast mass.

[1]  I Andersson,et al.  Radiographic Screening for Breast Carcinoma , 1981, Acta radiologica: diagnosis.

[2]  O. Gilmore,et al.  Benign biopsies in the prevalent round of breast screening: a review of 137 cases. , 1995, Clinical radiology.

[3]  I. Ellis,et al.  Pure mucinous breast cancer-mammographic and ultrasound findings. , 1996, Clinical radiology.

[4]  E. Conant,et al.  Imaging findings in mucin-containing carcinomas of the breast: correlation with pathologic features. , 1994, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[5]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Practical statistics for medical research , 1990 .

[6]  G Kossoff.  Causes of shadowing in breast sonography. , 1988, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[7]  I. Ellis,et al.  Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. , 2002, Histopathology.

[8]  T. Anderson.  Atlas of Diseases of the Breast , 1981 .

[9]  David O. Cosgrove,et al.  Ultrasound Diagnosis of Breast Diseases , 1994 .

[10]  Audrey K. Tucker,et al.  Textbook of Mammography , 2001 .

[11]  Handel E. Reynolds,et al.  Sonography of the breast. , 1996, Seminars in ultrasound, CT, and MR.

[12]  M. Aickin,et al.  Adjusting for multiple testing when reporting research results: the Bonferroni vs Holm methods. , 1996, American journal of public health.

[13]  D Jacob,et al.  [Analysis of the results of 137 subclinical breast lesions excisions. Value of ultrasonography in the early diagnosis of breast cancer]. , 1997, Journal de gynecologie, obstetrique et biologie de la reproduction.

[14]  Toshiji Kobayashi.  Diagnostic ultrasound in breast cancer: Analysis of retrotumorous echo patterns correlated with sonic attenuation by cancerous connective tissue , 1979, Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU.

[15]  J. Goldin,et al.  A guide to clinical epidemiology for radiologists: Part I study design and research methods. , 1996, Clinical radiology.