4.0 Article

Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: Evaluation of main presentations on magnetic resonance imaging compared with findings on mammogram and histology

期刊

REVISTA DA ASSOCIACAO MEDICA BRASILEIRA
卷 62, 期 5, 页码 421-427

出版社

ASSOC MEDICA BRASILEIRA
DOI: 10.1590/1806-9282.62.05.421

关键词

breast neoplasms; non-infiltrating intraductal carcinoma; mammography; magnetic resonance imaging; large-core needle biopsy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the various morphologies and kinetic characteristics of the ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) on breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) exam, to establish which are the most prevalent and to determine the effectiveness of the method in the detection of DCIS. Method: A prospective observational study, starting in May 2014. We evaluated 25 consecutive patients with suspicious or highly suspicious microcalcifications on mammography screening, BI-RADS categories 4 and 5, who underwent breast MRI and then surgery with proven diagnosis of pure DCIS. Surgery was considered the gold standard for correlation between histologic findings and radiological findings obtained on MRI. Results: The most frequent morphological characteristic of DCIS on MRI was non-mass-like enhancement (NMLE), p<0.001, observed in 22/25 (88%) patients (95CI 72.5-100). Of these, segmental distribution was the most prevalent, represented by 9/22 (40.91%) cases (95CI 17.4-64.4), p=0.306, and a clumped internal enhancement pattern was most commonly characterized in DCIS, observed in 13/22 (50.09%) cases. Conclusion: DCIS has a wide variety of imaging features on MRI and being able to recognize these lesions is crucial. Its most common morphological presentation is non-mass-like enhancement, while segmental distribution and a clumped internal enhancement pattern are the most common presentations. Faced with the combined analysis of these findings, percutaneous core needle biopsy (core biopsy) or vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) should be encouraged.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据