Ultrasound evaluation of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.

PURPOSE: To assess the role of ultrasound (US) in detecting and characterizing ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast and to investigate the correlation between ultrasonographic and biological features of DCIS. METHODS: In total, 171 patients (mean age 44; range 39-62) with 178 lesions were retrospectively evaluated by two independent radiologists searching for US mass or non-mass lesions. Immunohistochemistry analysis was performed to determine estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression. The US detection rate and pattern distribution among the lesion types were evaluated. The χ2 test was used to evaluate the correlation between the US findings and the biological factors. Statistical significance was indicated by p values < 0.05. Inter-observer agreement was calculated by Kohen's k test. RESULTS: US detected 35% (63/178) of all lesions. Fifty-two (83%) lesions were classified as mass lesions, and 11 (17%) as non-mass lesions (p < 0.0001). Among the mass lesions, the most common shape was irregular (79%; p < 0.0001), with 45 (87%) lesions having indistinct margins. Hypoechogenicity was the most common echo pattern (49 cases, 94%; p < 0.0001). Microcalcifications were found in 23 cases (37%; p = 0.004) and were associated with mass lesions in 15 cases (65%) and with non-mass lesions in 8 cases (35%) (p = 0.21). An almost perfect inter-observer agreement (k = 0.87) was obtained between the two radiologists. A significant ER expression was found in mass lesions (83%; p < 0.0001), with no significant PR (p = 0.89) or HER2 expression (p = 0.81). Among the lesions with microcalcifications, only 7 out of 23 cases (30%) were positive for HER2 (p = 0.09). CONCLUSION: DCIS represents a heterogeneous pathological process with variable US appearance (mass-like, non-mass-like, or occult). The most common US finding is represented by mass-type, hypoechogenic lesions with indistinct margins. A significant ER expression exists among mass-type lesions, while microcalcifications seem not to be associated with HER2 expression.

Comparison between an abbreviated and full MRI protocol for detecting additional disease when doing breast cancer staging.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging (aMRI) compares well to full-protocol MRI (fpMRI) in breast cancer (BC) screening, with the potential advantage of a less costly and complex examination. To our knowledge, the role for aMRI in staging BC has been poorly investigated, especially in assessing additional disease (ie, additional lesions compared to the index one prompting the examination). PURPOSE: To compare aMRI and fpMRI in detecting additional disease in BC staging. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective monocentric cohort study. POPULATION: In all, 87 patients with 89 biopsy-proven index lesions referred to staging fpMRI between January-June 2016. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: A 1.5T magnet using short tau inversion recovery (STIR) T2 -weighted imaging, echoplanar diffusion-weighted imaging, and 3D fast long angle shot (FLASH) T1 -weighted imaging. ASSESSMENT: During independent sessions, four readers with 1.5-20 years of experience in breast imaging, blinded to the pathological examination and previous imaging, assessed multifocal, multicentric, and contralateral additional lesions on fpMRI and aMRI (including precontrast T1 -weighted 3D FLASH sequence, first postcontrast subtracted T1 -weighted 3D FLASH sequence, and a transverse maximum intensity projection reconstruction). STATISTICAL TESTS: We calculated the per-lesion cancer detection rate (CDR), positive predictive value (PPV), and false discovery rate (FDR) for additional disease, assessing the significance of intrareader differences in CDR with the McNemar test. RESULTS: Pathological analysis found 36 additional lesions (multifocal, multicentric, and contralateral in 20, 15, and 1 cases, respectively). Readers' CDR was comparably high using aMRI (range 88.9-94.4%) or fpMRI (range 91.7-94.4%) (P > 0.05). PPV and FDR of aMRI (ranges 76.2-84.6% and 15.4-23.8%, respectively), and fpMRI (ranges 76.7-82.9% and 17.2-23.3%, respectively) were comparable on an intrareader basis. Using aMRI, two out of four readers induced two false-negative cases (one case each) with presumably limited impact on surgical planning (multifocal cancers <1 cm in size). DATA CONCLUSION: aMRI was comparable to fpMRI in staging additional BC. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:e222-e230.