Comparison of Mammography and Ultrasonography for Tumor Size of DCIS of Breast Cancer

Author(s): Yu Wang, Jiantao Wang*, Haiping Wang, Xinyu Yang, Liming Chang, Qi Li .

Journal Name: Current Medical Imaging

Volume 15 , Issue 2 , 2019

Submit Manuscript
Submit Proposal

Graphical Abstract:


Objective: Accurate assessment of breast tumor size preoperatively is important for the initial decision-making in surgical approach. Therefore, we aimed to compare efficacy of mammography and ultrasonography in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of breast cancer.

Methods: Preoperative mammography and ultrasonography were performed on 104 women with DCIS of breast cancer. We compared the accuracy of each of the imaging modalities with pathological size by Pearson correlation. For each modality, it was considered concordant if the difference between imaging assessment and pathological measurement is less than 0.5cm.

Results: At pathological examination tumor size ranged from 0.4cm to 7.2cm in largest diameter. For mammographically determined size versus pathological size, correlation coefficient of r was 0.786 and for ultrasonography it was 0.651. Grouped by breast composition, in almost entirely fatty and scattered areas of fibroglandular dense breast, correlation coefficient of r was 0.790 for mammography and 0.678 for ultrasonography; in heterogeneously dense and extremely dense breast, correlation coefficient of r was 0.770 for mammography and 0.548 for ultrasonography. In microcalcification positive group, coeffient of r was 0.772 for mammography and 0.570 for ultrasonography. In microcalcification negative group, coeffient of r was 0.806 for mammography and 0.783 for ultrasonography.

Conclusion: Mammography was more accurate than ultrasonography in measuring the largest cancer diameter in DCIS of breast cancer. The correlation coefficient improved in the group of almost entirely fatty/ scattered areas of fibroglandular dense breast or in microcalcification negative group.

Keywords: Mammography, ultrasonography, DCIS, tumor size, image, breast cancer.

Stein RG, Wollschlager D, Kreienberg R, Janni W, Wischnewsky M, Diessner J, et al. The impact of breast cancer biological subtyping on tumor size assessment by ultrasound and mammography - a retrospective multicenter cohort study of 6543 primary breast cancer patients. BMC Cancer 2016; 16: 459.
Bosch AM, Kessels AG, Beets GL, Rupa JD, Koster D, van Engelshoven JM, et al. Preoperative estimation of the pathological breast tumour size by physical examination, mammography and ultrasound: a prospective study on 105 invasive tumours. European journal of radiology 2003; 48(3): 285-92.
Fasching PA, Heusinger K, Loehberg CR, Wenkel E, Lux MP, Schrauder M, et al. Influence of mammographic density on the diagnostic accuracy of tumor size assessment and association with breast cancer tumor characteristics. European journal of radiology 2006; 60(3): 398-404.
Uematsu T, Yuen S, Kasami M, Uchida Y. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging, multidetector row computed tomography, ultrasonography, and mammography for tumor extension of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2008; 112(3): 461-74.
Cortadellas T, Argacha P, Acosta J, Rabasa J, Peiró R, Gomez M, et al. Estimation of tumor size in breast cancer comparing clinical examination, mammography, ultrasound and MRI-correlation with the pathological analysis of the surgical specimen. Gland Surg 2017; 6(4): 330-5.
Dummin LJ, Cox M, Plant L. Prediction of breast tumor size by mammography and sonography--A breast screen experience. Breast 2007; 16(1): 38-46.
Davis PL, Staiger MJ, Harris KB, Ganott MA, Klementaviciene J, McCarty KS Jr, et al. Breast cancer measurements with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasonography, and mammography. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1996; 37(1): 1-9.
Mardekian SK, Bombonati A, Palazzo JP. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: the importance of morphologic and molecular interactions. Hum Pathol 2016; 49: 114-23.
Pang JM, Gorringe KL, Fox SB. Ductal carcinoma in situ - update on risk assessment and management. Histopathology 2016; 68(1): 96-109.
Krug D, Souchon R. Radiotherapy of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ. Breast Care 2015; 10(4): 259-64.
Fisher ER, Leeming R, Anderson S, Redmond C, Fisher B. Conservative management of intraductal carcinoma (DCIS) of the breast. Collaborating NSABP investigators. Journal of surgical oncology 1991; 47(3): 139-47.
Bleicher RJ. Ductal carcinoma in situ. Surgical clinics of North America 2013; 93(2): 393-410.
Kaufman SA, Harris EE, Bailey L, Chadha M, Dutton SC, Freedman GM, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria(R) Ductal Carcinoma in Situ. Oncology. 2015;29(6):446-58, 60-1.
Evans A, Pinder S, Wilson R, Sibbering M, Poller D, Elston C, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: correlation between mammographic and pathologic findings. AJR American journal of roentgenology 1994; 162(6): 1307-11.
Ferranti C, Coopmans de Yoldi G, Biganzoli E, Bergonzi S, Mariani L, Scaperrotta G, et al. Relationships between age, mammographic features and pathological tumour characteristics in non-palpable breast cancer. The British journal of radiology 2000; 73(871): 698-705.
Hermann G, Janus C, Schwartz IS, Papatestas A, Hermann DG, Rabinowitz JG. Occult malignant breast lesions in 114 patients: relationship to age and the presence of microcalcifications. Radiology 1988; 169(2): 321-4.
Tresserra F, Feu J, Grases PJ, Navarro B, Alegret X, Fernandez-Cid A. Assessment of breast cancer size: sonographic and pathologic correlation. Journal of clinical ultrasound. JCU 1999; 27(9): 485-91.
Yang WT, Lam WW, Cheung H, Suen M, King WW, Metreweli C. Sonographic, magnetic resonance imaging, and mammographic assessments of preoperative size of breast cancer Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. 1997;16(12):791-7.
Golshan M, Fung BB, Wiley E, Wolfman J, Rademaker A, Morrow M. Prediction of breast cancer size by ultrasound, mammography and core biopsy. Breast 2004; 13(4): 265-71.
Allen SA, Cunliffe WJ, Gray J, Liston JE, Lunt LG, Webb LA, et al. Pre-operative estimation of primary breast cancer size: a comparison of clinical assessment, mammography and ultrasound. Breast 2001; 10(4): 299-305.
Holland R, Hendriks JH, Vebeek AL, Mravunac M, Schuurmans Stekhoven JH. Extent, distribution, and mammographic/histological correlations of breast ductal carcinoma in situ. Lancet 1990; 335(8688): 519-22.
Holland R, Hendriks JH. Microcalcifications associated with ductal carcinoma in situ: mammographic-pathologic correlation. Seminars in diagnostic pathology 1994; 11(3): 181-92.
Vernet-Tomas M, Mojal S, Gamero R, Nicolau P, Rodríguez-Arana A, Plancarte F, et al. Mammographic extent of microcalcifications and oestrogen receptor expression affect preoperative breast carcinoma in situ size estimation. Breast Cancer 2017; 24(3): 466-72.

Rights & PermissionsPrintExport Cite as

Article Details

Year: 2019
Page: [209 - 213]
Pages: 5
DOI: 10.2174/1573405614666180131163321
Price: $58

Article Metrics

PDF: 15