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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Breast (Edinburgh) 2008-06, Vol.17 (3), p.282-288
Hauptverfasser: Hoang, Jenny K, Hill, Prue, Cawson, Jennifer N
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