Mammographic Negative Cancer Detected by Ultrasound

  • Vedrana BuljevićEmail author


A few quotations from the book Breast Cancer: A Lobar Disease by Tibor Tot will be used as an introduction to this chapter, which will be followed by the presentation of several cases of early breast cancers invisible on mammography and detected by ultrasound. It is exactly through the presentation of the cases mentioned above that I will prove the theory stated in the quotations claiming that breast cancer is a lobar disease, even at the earliest stages. Lesions, detected by ultrasound, were cytologically verified under ultrasound control, and then an open biopsy was performed after a preoperative marcation under ultrasound control. All the lesions were impalpable, invisible on mammography, and up to 10 mm long at the ultrasound examination.

Pathohistological analysis would confirm malignity of lesions detected by ultrasound but also the existence of additional malignant microscopic lesions around the primary process, which required reoperation—quadrantectomia. Additional pathohistological detecting of microscopic foci in situ or microinvasive carcinoma in the tissue obtained by quadrantectomia (multifocality or diffusivity) would indicate subcutaneous mastectomy with primary reconstruction.


Early breast carcinoma Ultrasound detected Mammography invisible Lobar disease Ductal echography 


  1. 1.
    Tot T. Breast cancer, a lobar disease. London: Springer; 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ewing J. Neoplastic diseases: a treatise of tumors. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders WB; 1940. p. 568.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gallagher HS, Martin JE. Early phases in the development of breast cancer. Cancer. 1969;24:1170–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Teboul M, Halliwell M. Atlas of ultrasound and ductal echography of the breast. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 1995.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clarke MF, Dick JE, Dirks PB, Eaves CJ, Jammison CH, Jones DL, Visvader J, Weissman IL, Wahl GM. Cacer stem cells—prespectives on current status and future durectins. Cancer Res. 2006;66:9339–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yan PS, Venkataramu C, Ibrahim A, Liu JC, Shen RZ, Diaz NM, Centeno B, Webel F, Lez UW, Shapiro CL, Eng C, Yeatman TJ, Huang TH. Mapping geographic zones of cancer risk with epigenetic biomarkers in normal breast tissue. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12:6626–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tot T. The theory of the sick breast lobe and the possible consequences. Int J Surg Pathol. 2007;1:68–71.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Anderson JA, Blichert-Toft M, Dyreborg U. In situ carcinomas of the breast. Types, growth pattern, diagnosis and treatment. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1987;13:105–11.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Holland R, Hendricks JH, Vebeek AL, Mravunac M, Schuurmans Stekhoven JH. Extent, distribution, and mammographic/histological correlation of breast ductal carcinoma in situ. Lancet. 1990;335:519–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Faverly DRG, Henricks JHCL, Holland R. Breast carcinoma of limited extent. Frequency, radiological-patologic characteristics, and surgical margin requirements. Cancer. 2001;91:647–59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Foschini MP, Flamminio F, Miglio R, Calo DG, Cuccu MC, Masetti R, Eusebi V. The impact of large section on the study of in situ and invasive duct carcinoma of the breast. Hum Pathol. 2007;38:1736–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Amy D. Breast cancer a lobar disease. London: Springer; 2011. p. 153–62.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Amy D (2005) Millimetric breast carcinoma ultrasonic detection. In: Leading edge conference Pr. Goldberg B. USA.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Durante E. Multimodality imaging and interventional techniques. Ferarra, Italy: IBUS Course Abstracts; 2006.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Spinčićeva 2hSplitCroatia

Personalised recommendations