Can mammographic findings help discriminate between atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ after needle core biopsy?
Abstract In a screening population of women, the mammographic characteristics for 68 cases of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) diagnosed by needle core biopsy (NCB) were reviewed to seek mammographic findings which differentiate between ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and ADH. A blinded analysis by...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Breast (Edinburgh) 2008-06, Vol.17 (3), p.282-288 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 288 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 282 |
container_title | Breast (Edinburgh) |
container_volume | 17 |
creator | Hoang, Jenny K Hill, Prue Cawson, Jennifer N |
description | Abstract In a screening population of women, the mammographic characteristics for 68 cases of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) diagnosed by needle core biopsy (NCB) were reviewed to seek mammographic findings which differentiate between ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and ADH. A blinded analysis by two radiologists was performed for 48 cases with microcalcification. The mammographic findings were correlated with the surgical histological results of benign non-atypical, ADH and carcinoma (DCIS or invasive) to identify features which were associated with a higher or lower odds ratio (OR) for malignancy. Underestimates for malignancy occurred in 14 of 29 cases with granular calcification form (OR 7.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.5–41) and 6 of 8 cases with segmental/linear branching distribution (OR 9.0, 95%CI 1.6–52). No malignancy was found at surgical excision in 16 cases with fine, rounded calcification. In conclusion, detailed assessment of calcification distribution and form gave helpful predictors for malignancy. Lesions with fine rounded calcification were always benign. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.breast.2007.10.016 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71623123</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S0960977607002494</els_id><sourcerecordid>71623123</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-87f34d9a28c9fa2e3251fc2e0a6e7b84c6b5301119c8daee93c69faaec2d6eef3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFks9u1DAQxi0EotvCGyDkE7cs_pN1kgsIrYAiVeJQOFsTe9L1kjjBdoryAn1uHO0ipF56GunTN99ofjOEvOFsyxlX74_bNiDEtBWMVVnaZvEZ2fCdFIVkNXtONqxRrGiqSl2QyxiPjLFGqvolueA1U1KqZkMe9uDpAMMw3gWYDs7Qznnr_F2kB-wnal00wQ3OQ0LaYvqD6CmkZXIGempnk3I5LBOGqYfogIK3_2QDwTg_DkCdp9GlmUKXMFCPaHukZgw50o1TXD6-Ii866CO-Ptcr8vPL5x_76-Lm-9dv-083hSn5LhV11cnSNiBq03QgUIod74xABgqrti6NaneScc4bU1tAbKRR2QhohFWInbwi7065Uxh_zxiTHvKC2PfgcZyjrrgSkguZjeXJaMIYY8BOTxkDhEVzplf--qhP_PXKf1WzmNvenvPndkD7v-kMPBs-nAyYt7x3GHQ0Dr1B6wKapO3onprwOMD0zq_X-IULxuM4B58Jaq6j0Ezfrj-wvgCrGBNlU8q_BHqxXA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>71623123</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Can mammographic findings help discriminate between atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ after needle core biopsy?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Hoang, Jenny K ; Hill, Prue ; Cawson, Jennifer N</creator><creatorcontrib>Hoang, Jenny K ; Hill, Prue ; Cawson, Jennifer N</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract In a screening population of women, the mammographic characteristics for 68 cases of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) diagnosed by needle core biopsy (NCB) were reviewed to seek mammographic findings which differentiate between ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and ADH. A blinded analysis by two radiologists was performed for 48 cases with microcalcification. The mammographic findings were correlated with the surgical histological results of benign non-atypical, ADH and carcinoma (DCIS or invasive) to identify features which were associated with a higher or lower odds ratio (OR) for malignancy. Underestimates for malignancy occurred in 14 of 29 cases with granular calcification form (OR 7.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.5–41) and 6 of 8 cases with segmental/linear branching distribution (OR 9.0, 95%CI 1.6–52). No malignancy was found at surgical excision in 16 cases with fine, rounded calcification. In conclusion, detailed assessment of calcification distribution and form gave helpful predictors for malignancy. Lesions with fine rounded calcification were always benign.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0960-9776</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-3080</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2007.10.016</identifier><identifier>PMID: 18063369</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Atypical ductal hyperplasia ; Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Calcinosis - pathology ; Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating - diagnosis ; Diagnosis, Differential ; Ductal carcinoma in situ ; Female ; Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine ; Humans ; Hyperplasia ; Mammary Glands, Human - pathology ; Mammography ; Middle Aged ; Needle core biopsy ; Precancerous Conditions - diagnosis</subject><ispartof>Breast (Edinburgh), 2008-06, Vol.17 (3), p.282-288</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>2007 Elsevier Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-87f34d9a28c9fa2e3251fc2e0a6e7b84c6b5301119c8daee93c69faaec2d6eef3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-87f34d9a28c9fa2e3251fc2e0a6e7b84c6b5301119c8daee93c69faaec2d6eef3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2007.10.016$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18063369$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hoang, Jenny K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hill, Prue</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cawson, Jennifer N</creatorcontrib><title>Can mammographic findings help discriminate between atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ after needle core biopsy?</title><title>Breast (Edinburgh)</title><addtitle>Breast</addtitle><description>Abstract In a screening population of women, the mammographic characteristics for 68 cases of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) diagnosed by needle core biopsy (NCB) were reviewed to seek mammographic findings which differentiate between ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and ADH. A blinded analysis by two radiologists was performed for 48 cases with microcalcification. The mammographic findings were correlated with the surgical histological results of benign non-atypical, ADH and carcinoma (DCIS or invasive) to identify features which were associated with a higher or lower odds ratio (OR) for malignancy. Underestimates for malignancy occurred in 14 of 29 cases with granular calcification form (OR 7.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.5–41) and 6 of 8 cases with segmental/linear branching distribution (OR 9.0, 95%CI 1.6–52). No malignancy was found at surgical excision in 16 cases with fine, rounded calcification. In conclusion, detailed assessment of calcification distribution and form gave helpful predictors for malignancy. Lesions with fine rounded calcification were always benign.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Atypical ductal hyperplasia</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Calcinosis - pathology</subject><subject>Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating - diagnosis</subject><subject>Diagnosis, Differential</subject><subject>Ductal carcinoma in situ</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Hyperplasia</subject><subject>Mammary Glands, Human - pathology</subject><subject>Mammography</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Needle core biopsy</subject><subject>Precancerous Conditions - diagnosis</subject><issn>0960-9776</issn><issn>1532-3080</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFks9u1DAQxi0EotvCGyDkE7cs_pN1kgsIrYAiVeJQOFsTe9L1kjjBdoryAn1uHO0ipF56GunTN99ofjOEvOFsyxlX74_bNiDEtBWMVVnaZvEZ2fCdFIVkNXtONqxRrGiqSl2QyxiPjLFGqvolueA1U1KqZkMe9uDpAMMw3gWYDs7Qznnr_F2kB-wnal00wQ3OQ0LaYvqD6CmkZXIGempnk3I5LBOGqYfogIK3_2QDwTg_DkCdp9GlmUKXMFCPaHukZgw50o1TXD6-Ii866CO-Ptcr8vPL5x_76-Lm-9dv-083hSn5LhV11cnSNiBq03QgUIod74xABgqrti6NaneScc4bU1tAbKRR2QhohFWInbwi7065Uxh_zxiTHvKC2PfgcZyjrrgSkguZjeXJaMIYY8BOTxkDhEVzplf--qhP_PXKf1WzmNvenvPndkD7v-kMPBs-nAyYt7x3GHQ0Dr1B6wKapO3onprwOMD0zq_X-IULxuM4B58Jaq6j0Ezfrj-wvgCrGBNlU8q_BHqxXA</recordid><startdate>20080601</startdate><enddate>20080601</enddate><creator>Hoang, Jenny K</creator><creator>Hill, Prue</creator><creator>Cawson, Jennifer N</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20080601</creationdate><title>Can mammographic findings help discriminate between atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ after needle core biopsy?</title><author>Hoang, Jenny K ; Hill, Prue ; Cawson, Jennifer N</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c415t-87f34d9a28c9fa2e3251fc2e0a6e7b84c6b5301119c8daee93c69faaec2d6eef3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Atypical ductal hyperplasia</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Calcinosis - pathology</topic><topic>Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating - diagnosis</topic><topic>Diagnosis, Differential</topic><topic>Ductal carcinoma in situ</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Hyperplasia</topic><topic>Mammary Glands, Human - pathology</topic><topic>Mammography</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Needle core biopsy</topic><topic>Precancerous Conditions - diagnosis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hoang, Jenny K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hill, Prue</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cawson, Jennifer N</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Breast (Edinburgh)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hoang, Jenny K</au><au>Hill, Prue</au><au>Cawson, Jennifer N</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Can mammographic findings help discriminate between atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ after needle core biopsy?</atitle><jtitle>Breast (Edinburgh)</jtitle><addtitle>Breast</addtitle><date>2008-06-01</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>282</spage><epage>288</epage><pages>282-288</pages><issn>0960-9776</issn><eissn>1532-3080</eissn><abstract>Abstract In a screening population of women, the mammographic characteristics for 68 cases of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) diagnosed by needle core biopsy (NCB) were reviewed to seek mammographic findings which differentiate between ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and ADH. A blinded analysis by two radiologists was performed for 48 cases with microcalcification. The mammographic findings were correlated with the surgical histological results of benign non-atypical, ADH and carcinoma (DCIS or invasive) to identify features which were associated with a higher or lower odds ratio (OR) for malignancy. Underestimates for malignancy occurred in 14 of 29 cases with granular calcification form (OR 7.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.5–41) and 6 of 8 cases with segmental/linear branching distribution (OR 9.0, 95%CI 1.6–52). No malignancy was found at surgical excision in 16 cases with fine, rounded calcification. In conclusion, detailed assessment of calcification distribution and form gave helpful predictors for malignancy. Lesions with fine rounded calcification were always benign.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>18063369</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.breast.2007.10.016</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0960-9776 |
ispartof | Breast (Edinburgh), 2008-06, Vol.17 (3), p.282-288 |
issn | 0960-9776 1532-3080 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71623123 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete |
subjects | Adult Aged Atypical ductal hyperplasia Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis Calcinosis - pathology Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating - diagnosis Diagnosis, Differential Ductal carcinoma in situ Female Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine Humans Hyperplasia Mammary Glands, Human - pathology Mammography Middle Aged Needle core biopsy Precancerous Conditions - diagnosis |
title | Can mammographic findings help discriminate between atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ after needle core biopsy? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T11%3A15%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Can%20mammographic%20findings%20help%20discriminate%20between%20atypical%20ductal%20hyperplasia%20and%20ductal%20carcinoma%20in%20situ%20after%20needle%20core%20biopsy?&rft.jtitle=Breast%20(Edinburgh)&rft.au=Hoang,%20Jenny%20K&rft.date=2008-06-01&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=282&rft.epage=288&rft.pages=282-288&rft.issn=0960-9776&rft.eissn=1532-3080&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.breast.2007.10.016&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E71623123%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=71623123&rft_id=info:pmid/18063369&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S0960977607002494&rfr_iscdi=true |