Abstract
Purpose
To retrospectively review sonographic findings of breast cancers presenting as only microcalcifications on mammography and to evaluate factors essential for differentiating ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) from invasive cancers.
Methods
We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 620 consecutive patients with confirmed breast cancer according to surgery performed between March 2008 and October 2011 at our institution. Of these, 53 lesions from 52 patients who had only microcalcifications without a mass or other associated findings on mammography were selected. Sonographic findings of microcalcification areas were analyzed and correlated with the histopathological findings.
Results
Of the 53 lesions, 26 (49.18 %) were classified as invasive cancer and 27 (50.9 %) as DCIS. Ultrasonography (US) showed only echogenic calcifications in five (9.4 %), calcifications within hypoechoic parenchymal thickening in 14 (26.4 %), calcifications within ductal changes in three (5.7 %), and calcifications within a mass in 14 (26.4 %). Seventeen (32.1 %) lesions were not visible on US. Negative findings in US were more frequently observed for DCIS (n = 15, 55.6 %) than for invasive cancers (n = 2, 7.7 %) (p < 0.001). Masses (n = 11, 42.3 % of invasive cancer; n = 3, 11.1 % of DCIS; p = 0.01) were more frequently observed in invasive cancers than in DCIS.
Conclusions
US findings of breast cancers presenting as only mammographic microcalcifications were significantly different between DCIS and invasive cancers. Targeted US of microcalcifications might be helpful for predicting invasive cancers and for determining the clinical preoperative work-up, including axillary staging.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Gufler H, Buitrago-Tellez CH, Madjar H, et al. Ultrasound demonstration of mammographically detected microcalcifications. Acta Radiol. 2000;41:217–21.
Moon WK, Im JG, Koh YH, et al. US of mammographically detected clustered microcalcifications. Radiology. 2000;217:849–54.
Soo MS, Baker JA, Rosen EL, et al. Sonographically guided biopsy of suspicious microcalcifications of the breast: a pilot study. Am J Roentgenol. 2002;178:1007–15.
Soo MS, Baker JA, Rosen EL. Sonographic detection and sonographically guided biopsy of breast microcalcifications. Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180:941–8.
Kang SS, Ko EY, Han BK, Shih JH. Breast US in patients who had microcalcifications with low concern of malignancy on screening mammography. Eur J Radiol. 2008;67:285–91.
American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003.
Osako T, Takahashi K, Iwase T, et al. Diagnostic ultrasonography and mammography for invasive and noninvasive breast cancer in women aged 30 to 39 years. Breast cancer. 2007;14:229–33.
Ikeda DM, Andersson I. Ductal carcinoma in situ: atypical mammographic appearances. Radiology. 1989;172:661–6.
Stomper PC, Margolin FR. Ductal carcinoma in situ: the mammographer’s perspective. Am J Roentgenol. 1994;162:585–91.
Dershaw DD, Abramson A, Kinne DW. Ductal carcinoma in situ: mammographic findings and clinical implications. Radiology. 1989;170:411–5.
Stavros AT. Breast Ultrasound. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams Wilkins; 2004. p. 597–688.
Stomper PC, Geradts J, Edge SB, et al. Mammographic predictors of the presence and size of invasive carcinomas associated with malignant microcalcification lesions without a mass. Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181:1679–84.
Liberman L, Abramson AF, Squires FB, et al. The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. Am J Roentgenol. 1998;171:35–40.
Moon WK, Myung JS, Lee YJ, et al. US of ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiographics. 2002;22:269–81.
Yang WT, Tse GM. Sonographic, mammographic, and histopathologic correlation of symptomatic ductal carcinoma in situ. Am J Roentgenol. 2004;182:101–10.
Park JS, Park YM, Kim EK, Kim SJ, Han SS, Lee SJ, et al. Sonographic findings of high-grade and non-high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Ultrasound Med. 2010;29:1687–97.
Zavagno G, Belardinelli V, Marconato R, Carcoforo P, Franchini Z, Scalco G, et al. Sentinel lymph node metastasis from mammary ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion. Breast. 2007;16:146–51.
Guth AA, Mercado C, Roses DF, Darvishian F, Singh B, Cangiarella JF. Microinvasive breast cancer and the role of sentinel node biopsy: an institutional experience and review of the literature. Breast J. 2008;14:335–9.
Van la Parra RF, Ernst MF, Barneveld PC, Broekman JM, Rutten MJ, Bosscha K. The value of sentinel lymph node biopsy in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and DCIS with microinvasion of the breast. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008;34:631–5.
Vieira CC, Mercado CL, Cangiarella JF, Moy L, Toth HK, Guth AA. Microinvasive ductal carcinoma in situ: clinical presentation, imaging features, pathologic findings, and outcome. Eur J Radiol. 2010;73:102–7.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by research funds from Dong-A University.
Conflict of interest
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Han, JY., Lee, J.H., Kim, EK. et al. Breast US in patients with breast cancer presenting as only microcalcifications on mammography: can US differentiate ductal carcinoma in situ from invasive cancer?. J Med Ultrasonics 41, 39–44 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10396-013-0474-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10396-013-0474-z