Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Invasive Ductal Carcinoma NST and Special Subtypes: Radiology-Pathology Correlation

  • Best Practice Approaches Breast Radiology-Pathology Correlation and Management (J Scheel and MR Kilgore, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Breast Cancer Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

When patients are diagnosed with breast cancer, they are often interested to know as much about their disease as possible. At the same time, treating physicians want to determine prognosis and management. This article reviews imaging and pathology findings for the various invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC).

Recent Findings

This review describes the spectrum of imaging and pathologic findings of IDC, including subtypes, to guide determining radiological-pathological concordance and next steps of management.

Summary

While there are some imaging features highly suspicious for IDC, there is significant overlap with benign entities. This review focuses on the important differences between IDC subtypes and benign entities and when this affects management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Dillon DA, Guidi AJ, Schnitt SJ. Ch. 25: Pathology of invasive breast cancer. In: Harris JR, Lippman ME, Morrow M, Osborne CK, editors. Diseases of the Breast. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Williams & Wilkins; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Henry NL, Shah PD, Haider I, Freer PE, Jagsi R, Sabel MS. Chapter 88: Cancer of the breast. In: Niederhuber JE, Armitage JO, Doroshow JH, Kastan MB, Tepper JE, editors. Abeloff’s Clinical Oncology. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Jagsi R, King TA, Lehman C, Morrow M, Harris JR, Burstein HJ. Chapter 79: Malignant tumors of the breast. In: DeVita VT, Lawrence TS, Lawrence TS, Rosenberg SA, editors. DeVita, Hellman, and Rosenberg’s Cancer: Principles and Practice of Oncology. 11th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Makki J. Diversity of breast carcinoma: histological subtypes and clinical relevance. Clin Med Insights Pathol. 2015;8:23–31. https://doi.org/10.4137/CPath.S31563 Published 2015 Dec 21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Sinn HP, Kreipe H. A brief overview of the WHO Classification of Breast Tumors, 4th Edition, Focusing on Issues and Updates from the 3rd Edition. Breast Care (Basel, Switzerland). 2013;8(2):149–54. https://doi.org/10.1159/000350774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Niknejad MT, Skandhan AKP, et al. Invasive ductal carcinoma. https://radiopaedia.org/articles/invasive-ductal-carcinoma?lang=us. Accessed 28 June 2021

  7. Mitnick JS, Gianutsos R, Pollack AH, et al. Tubular carcinoma of the breast: sensitivity of diagnostic techniques and correlation with histopathology. AJR. 1999;172:319–23.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Sheppard DG, Whitman GJ, Fornage BD, et al. Tubular carcinoma of the breast: mammographic and sonographic features. AJR. 2000;174:253–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Leibman AJ, Lewis M, Kruse B. Tubular carcinoma of the breast: mammographic appearance. AJR. 1993;160:263–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Limaiem F, Mlika M. Tubular breast carcinoma. [Updated 2020 Oct 16]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2021 Jan-. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK542223/.

  11. Kong X, Liu Z, Cheng R, et al. Variation in breast cancer subtype incidence and distribution by race/ethnicity in the United States from 2010 to 2015. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(10): e2020303. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.20303.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Günhan-Bilgen Işil, Oktay Ayşenur. Tubular carcinoma of the breast: mammographic, sonographic, clinical and pathologic findings. Eur J Radiol. 2007;61(1):158–62. This study retrospectively reviewed 32 invasive tubular carcinoma cases. Invasive tubular carcinoma is seen as a small spiculated mass on mammography, and as an irregular mass with posterior acoustic shadowing.

  13. Sheppard DG, Whitman GJ, Fornage BD, Stelling CB, Huynh PT, Sahin AA. Tubular carcinoma of the breast. Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174(1):253–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Yilmaz R, Bayramoğlu Z, Emirikçi S, Önder S, Salmaslıoğlu A, Dursun M, Acunaş G, Özmen V. MR Imaging features of tubular carcinoma: preliminary experience in twelve masses. Eur J Breast Health. 2018;14(1):39–45. https://doi.org/10.5152/ejbh.2017.3543.PMID:29322118;PMCID:PMC5758062.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Toikkanen S, Kujari H. Pure and mixed mucinous carcinomas of the breast: a clinicopathologic analysis of 61 cases with long-term follow-up. Hum Pathol. 1989;20:758–64.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Liu Haiquan, Tan Hongna, Cheng Yufan, et al. Imaging findings in mucinous breast carcinoma and correlating factors. Eur J Radiol. 2011;80(3):706–12. This study investigated the radiologically features of pure mucinous type and mixed mucinous carcinoma of breast. Radiologically, mucinous carcinoma demonstrates as a mass on mammography and a hypoechoic lesion with heterogeneous internal echo on sonography. There was no correlation found between sonographic findings and histological types.

  17. Bitencourt AGV, Graziano L, Osório CABT, Guatelli CS, Souza JA, Mendonça MHS, Marques EF. MRI features of mucinous cancer of the breast: correlation with pathologic findings and other imaging methods. Am J Roentgenol. 2016;206(2):238–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Li CI. Risk of mortality by histologic type of breast cancer in the United States. Horm Cancer. 2010;1:156–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Luna-Moré S, Gonzalez B, Acedo C, Rodrigo I, Luna C. Invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast: a new special type of invasive mammary carcinoma. Pathol Res Pract. 1994;190:668–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Middleton LP, Tressera F, Sobel ME, et al. Infiltrating micropapillary carcinoma of the breast. Mod Pathol. 1999;12:499–504.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Nassar H, Wallis T, Andea A, Dey J, Adsay V, Visscher D. Clinicopathologic analysis of invasive micropapillary differentiation in breast carcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2001;14:836–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Siriaunkgul S, Tavassoli FA. Invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast. Mod Pathol. 1993;6:660–2.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Walsh MM, Bleiweiss IJ. Invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast: eighty cases of an under-recognized entity. Hum Pathol. 2001;32:583–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Kim MJ, Gong G, Joo HJ, Ahn SH, Ro JY. Immunohistochemical and clinicopathologic characteristics of invasive ductal carcinoma of breast with micropapillary carcinoma component. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005;129:1277–82. This study reviewed 38 invasive micropapillary carcinoma cases compared with 217 cases of invasive carcinoma without micropapillary component. The results of this study showed that invasive micropapillary carcinoma are associated with larger tumor size, more frequent lymphovascular invasion and nodal metastases, and higher stage.

  25. Kuroda H, Sakamoto G, Ohnisi K, Itoyama S. Clinical and pathologic features of invasive micropapillary carcinoma. Breast Cancer. 2004;11:169–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Tresserra F, Grases PJ, Fábregas R, Férnandez-Cid A, Dexeus S. Invasive micropapillary carcinoma: distinct features of a poorly recognized variant of breast carcinoma. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 1999;20:205–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Jones KN, Guimaraes LS, Reynolds CA, et al. Invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast: imaging features with clinical and pathologic correlation. Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200:689–95. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.8512. This study reviewed 41 cases with invasive micropapillary carcinoma feature. The most common radiological findings are irregular mass on mammography, and irregular hypoechoic mass with spiculated margins and posterior acoustic shadowing on sonography. MRI reveals irregular mass with washout kinetics, or diffuse heterogeneous non-mass like enhancement.

  28. Foulkes WD, Smith IE, Reis-Filho JS. Triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(20):1938–48.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Meyer JE, Amin E, Lindfors KK, Lipman JC, Stomper PC, Genest D. Medullary carcinoma of the breast: mammographic and US appearance. Radiology. 1989;170(1 Pt 1):79–82. The radiological features were reviewed in a total of 24 medullary carcinoma of breast cases. On mammography, tumors appear as round or oval, noncalcified massed. Sonography demonstrates well-defined masses with an inhomogeneous, hypoechoic texture.

  30. Yoo JL, Woo OH, Kim YK, Cho KR, Yong HS, Seo BK, Kim A, Kang EY. Can MR imaging contribute in characterizing well-circumscribed breast carcinomas? Radiographics. 2010;30(6):1689–702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Tominaga J, Hama H, Kimura N, Takahashi S. MR imaging of medullary carcinoma of the breast. Eur J Radiol. 2009;70(3):525–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Jeong SJ, Lim HS, Lee JS, Park MH, Yoon JH, Park JG, Kang HK. Medullary carcinoma of the breast: MRI findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198(5):W482–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Inno A, Bogina G, Turazza M, et al. Neuroendocrine carcinoma of the breast: current evidence and future perspectives. Oncologist. 2016;21(1):28–32. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2015-0309.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Park Y M, Yun W, Wei W, Yang W T. Primary neuroendocrine carcinoma of the breast: clinical, imaging, and histologic features. Am J Roentgenol. 2014;203:W221–30. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.10749. The radiological findings were retrospectively reviewed in 84 cases with primary neuroendocrine breast carcinoma (NEC). In comparison to those non-specific type invasive mammary carcinoma, breast NEC more frequently demonstrates as high density, round or oval, or lobular mass with non-spiculated margins on mammography, and an irregular hypoechoic mass with indistinct margins, no or enhanced posterior acoustic features on sonograms. MRI reveals an irregular mass with irregular margins and washout kinetics.

  35. Bussolati G, Badve S. Carcinomas with neuroendocrine features. In: Lakhani SR, Ellis IO, Schnitt SJ, Tan PH, van der Vijver MJ, editors. WHO classification of tumours of the breast. Lyon, France: IARC Press; 2012:62–63. World Health Organization Classification of Tumours; vol 4.

  36. Kim Ji Min, Kim Shin Young, MeeHye Oh, et al. A rare case of invasive apocrine carcinoma of the breast with unusual radiologic findings. Iran J Radiol. 2016;13(3):e35298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Gokalp G, Topal U, Haholu A, Kizilkaya E. Apocrine carcinoma of the breast: mammography and ultrasound findings. European Journal of Radiology Extra. 2006;60(2):55–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Gilles R, Lesnik A, Guinebretiere JM, Tardivon A, Masselot J, Contesso G, et al. Apocrine carcinoma: clinical and mammographic features. Radiology. 1994;190(2):495–7. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.190.2.8284405.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Woo O, Kim A, Cho K, Seo B, Kang E. Apocrine carcinoma of the breast: clinical presentations, multimodality imaging findings and pathologic correlation. Cancer Res. 2009;69(2 Supplement):4029. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.SABCS-4029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Seo KJ, An YY, Whang IY, Chang ED, Kang BJ, Kim SH, et al. Sonography of invasive apocrine carcinoma of the breast in five cases. Korean J Radiol. 2015;16(5):1006–11. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2015.16.5.1006.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Lee YJ, Choi BB, Suh KS. Invasive cribriform carcinoma of the breast: mammographic, sonographic, MRI, and 18 F-FDG PET-CT features. Acta Radiol. 2015;56(6):644–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185114538425. This study reviewed 28 cases of invasive cribriform carcinoma. The most common radiological findings are irregular shape mass, spiculated margin, some with pleomorphic calcifications. These features are highly suggestive of malignancy, but are not distinguishable from invasive breast carcinoma of no special type.

  42. Grenier J, Soria JC, Mathieu MC, et al. Differential immunohistochemical and biological profile of squamous cell carcinoma of the breast. Anticancer Res. 2007;27(1B):547–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. PezziCM P-P, ColeK FrankoJ, KlimbergVS BlandK. Characteristics and treatment of metaplastic breast cancer: analysis of 892 cases from the National Cancer Data Base. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14(1):166–73. This review examined a total of 892 patients with metaplastic carcinoma reported to the National Cancer Database from 2001 to 2003. The data demonstrated that metaplastic breast carcinoma is a rare tumor with larger size, less nodal involvement, higher tumor grade, and negative hormone receptors.

  44. Kim Hyun Jeong, Kim Shin Young, Huh Sun. Multimodality imaging findings of metaplastic breast carcinomas. Ultrasound Q. 2018;34(2):88–93. https://doi.org/10.1097/RUQ.0000000000000340.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Chang YW, Lee MH, Kwon KH, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of metaplastic carcinoma of the breast: sonographic and pathologic correlation. Acta Radiol. 2004;45:18–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Choi BB, Shu KS. Metaplastic carcinoma of the breast: multimodality imaging and histopathologic assessment. Acta Radiol. 2012;53:5–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Velasco M, Santamaría G, Ganau S, et al. MRI of metaplastic carcinoma of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184:1274–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Ryckman EM, Murphy TJ, Meschter SC, et al. AIRP best cases in radiologic-pathologic correlation: metaplastic squamous cell carcinoma of the breast. Radiographics. 2013;33:2019–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Günhan-Bilgen I, Memiş A, Ustün EE, Zekioglu O, Ozdemir N. Metaplastic carcinoma of the breast: clinical, mammographic, and sonographic findings with histopathologic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;178(6):1421–5. This retrospective study investigated mammographic and sonographic findings of breast metaplastic carcinoma and correlated the radiologic features with histopathologic findings. Clinically, metaplastic breast cancer manifests as rapid growing palpable mass. Complex echogenicity with solid and cystic components may be seen on sonography and is related to necrosis and cystic degeneration seen histologically.

  50. Behranwala KA, Nasiri N, Abdullah N, Trott PA, Gui GP. Squamous cell carcinoma of the breast: clinico-pathologic implications and outcome. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2003;29:386–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Esbah O, Turkoz FP, Turker I, Durnali A, Ekinci AS, Bal O, et al. Metaplastic breast carcinoma: case series and review of the literature. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2012;13:4645–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Dekkers Ilona A, Cleven Arjen, Lamb Hildo J, Kroon Herman M. AIRP best cases in radiologic-pathologic correlation: primary osteosarcoma of the breast. RadioGraphics. 2019;39(3):626–9. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2019180181.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Greenspan A. Benign bone-forming lesions: osteoma, osteoid osteoma, and osteoblastoma—clinical, imaging, pathologic, and differential considerations. Skeletal Radiol. 1993;22(7):485–500.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Hicks DG, Lester SC. In Diagnostic Pathology: Breast (Second Edition), 2016.

  55. Hee Jung Shin, Hak Hee Kim, Sun Mi Kim, et al. Imaging features of metaplastic carcinoma with chondroid differentiation of the breast. Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:691–696. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.05.0831.

  56. Wargotz ES, Deos PH, Norris HJ. Metaplastic carcinomas of the breast. Part II. Spindle cell carcinoma. Hum Pathol. 1989;20:732–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Taliaferro AS, Fein-Zachary V, Venkataraman S, et al. Imaging features of spindle cell breast lesions. Am J Roentgenol. 2017;209:454–64. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.17610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Yang WT, Hennessy B, Broglio K, et al. Imaging differences in metaplastic and invasive ductal carcinomas of the breast. AJR. 2007;189:1288–93. This study compared the imaging features of metaplastic carcinoma with those of invasive breast carcinoma of no special type. They found that metaplastic carcinoma shows round or oval shape with circumscribed margins, while the invasive breast carcinoma of no special type demonstrates irregular shape, spiculated margins, segmentally distributed calcifications, and posterior acoustic shadowing.

  59. Leddy R, Irshad A, Rumboldt T, Cluver A, Campbell A, Ackerman S. Review of metaplastic carcinoma of the breast: imaging findings and pathologic features. J Clin Imaging Sci. 2012;2:21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Günhan-Bilgen I, Memiş A, Üstün EE, Zekioglu O, Özdemir N. Metaplastic carcinoma of the breast: clinical, mammographic, and sonographic findings with histopathologic correlation. AJR. 2002;178:1421–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Velasco M, Santamaría G, Ganau S, et al. MRI of metaplastic carcinoma of the breast. AJR. 2005;184:1274–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Rosen PP. Adenoid cystic carcinoma of the breast: a morphologically heterogeneous neoplasm. Pathol Annu 1989;24:237–254

  63. Glazebrook KN, Reynolds C, Smith RL, et al. Adenoid cystic carcinoma of the breast. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:1391–6. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.3545. This paper retrospectively reviewed 11 cases of adenoid cystic carcinoma. Tumors show asymmetric densities or irregular masses on the mammography, and appear as irregular, heterogeneous, or hypoechoic masses with minimal vascularity on sonography. Tumor enhancement by MRI better delineated some cases which show subtle findings on sonography. MRI shows irregular or spiculated mass or suspicious enhancement kinetics.

  64. Santamaría G, Velasco M, Zanón G, et al. Adenoid cystic carcinoma of the breast: mammographic appearance and pathologic correlation. AJR. 1998;171:1679–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA

    Quan D. Nguyen

  2. Department of Pathology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA

    Jing He

Authors
  1. Quan D. Nguyen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jing He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Quan D. Nguyen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Best Practice Approaches Breast Radiology-Pathology Correlation and Management

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nguyen, Q.D., He, J. Invasive Ductal Carcinoma NST and Special Subtypes: Radiology-Pathology Correlation. Curr Breast Cancer Rep 13, 347–364 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-021-00436-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-021-00436-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation