Skip to main content
Erschienen in: European Radiology 11/2020

26.06.2020 | Breast

Ductal carcinoma in situ on digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis: rates and predictors of pathologic upgrade

verfasst von: Geunwon Kim, Peter G. Mikhael, Tawakalitu O. Oseni, Manisha Bahl

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 11/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

To compare upgrade rates of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) on digital mammography (DM) versus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and identify patient, imaging, and pathological features associated with upgrade risk.

Methods

A retrospective review was performed of 318 women (mean 59 years, range 37–89) with screening-detected DCIS from 2007 to 2011 (DM group) and from 2013 to 2016 (DBT group). Comparisons made between DM and DBT groups using the unpaired t test and chi-square test include detection rates of DCIS, upgrade rates to invasive cancer, and pathological features of DCIS and upgraded cases. Patient, imaging, and pathological features associated with upgrade were also determined. P values < 0.05 were considered significant.

Results

There was no significant difference in detection rates of DCIS between DM and DBT groups (0.9 versus 1.0 per 1000 examinations, p = 0.45). Upgrade rates of DCIS to invasive cancer in DM and DBT groups were similar (17.3% versus 16.8%, p = 0.90), despite significant differences in pathological features of DCIS between DM and DBT groups (including nuclear grade, comedonecrosis, and progesterone receptor status [p ≤ 0.01]). Among upgraded cases, a higher proportion were high-grade invasive cancers with DBT (36.7% versus 9.5%, p = 0.03). In both groups, ultrasound-guided (versus stereotactic) biopsy was associated with higher upgrade risk (p ≤ 0.03).

Conclusions

There was no significant difference in detection rates or upgrade rates of DCIS on DM versus DBT; however, upgraded cases were more likely to be high grade with DBT, suggesting possible differences in tumor biology between cancers with DM and DBT. In both DM and DBT groups, biopsy modality was associated with upgrade risk.

Key Points

• Detection rates and upgrade rates of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) on digital mammography (DM) versus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) are similar.
• A higher proportion of upgraded cases were high-grade invasive cancers with DBT than DM, suggesting possible differences in tumor biology between cancers that are detected with DM and DBT.
• With both DM and DBT, ultrasound-guided biopsy (versus stereotactic biopsy) was associated with a higher risk of upgrade.
Literatur
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Shehata M, Grimm L, Ballantyne N et al (2019) Ductal carcinoma in situ: current concepts in biology, imaging, and treatment. J Breast Imaging 1:166–176CrossRef Shehata M, Grimm L, Ballantyne N et al (2019) Ductal carcinoma in situ: current concepts in biology, imaging, and treatment. J Breast Imaging 1:166–176CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Brem RF, Schoonjans JM, Goodman SN, Nolten A, Askin FB, Gatewood OM (2001) Nonpalpable breast cancer: percutaneous diagnosis with 11- and 8-gauge stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy devices. Radiology 219:793–796CrossRef Brem RF, Schoonjans JM, Goodman SN, Nolten A, Askin FB, Gatewood OM (2001) Nonpalpable breast cancer: percutaneous diagnosis with 11- and 8-gauge stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy devices. Radiology 219:793–796CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Jackman RJ, Burbank F, Parker SH et al (2001) Stereotactic breast biopsy of nonpalpable lesions: determinants of ductal carcinoma in situ underestimation rates. Radiology 218:497–502CrossRef Jackman RJ, Burbank F, Parker SH et al (2001) Stereotactic breast biopsy of nonpalpable lesions: determinants of ductal carcinoma in situ underestimation rates. Radiology 218:497–502CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Wahedna Y, Evans AJ, Pinder SE, Ellis IO, Blamey RW, Geraghty JG (2001) Mammographic size of ductal carcinoma in situ does not predict the presence of an invasive focus. Eur J Cancer 37:459–462CrossRef Wahedna Y, Evans AJ, Pinder SE, Ellis IO, Blamey RW, Geraghty JG (2001) Mammographic size of ductal carcinoma in situ does not predict the presence of an invasive focus. Eur J Cancer 37:459–462CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Goyal A, Douglas-Jones A, Monypenny I, Sweetland H, Stevens G, Mansel RE (2006) Is there a role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in ductal carcinoma in situ?: analysis of 587 cases. Breast Cancer Res Treat 98:311–314CrossRef Goyal A, Douglas-Jones A, Monypenny I, Sweetland H, Stevens G, Mansel RE (2006) Is there a role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in ductal carcinoma in situ?: analysis of 587 cases. Breast Cancer Res Treat 98:311–314CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Brennan ME, Turner RM, Ciatto S et al (2011) Ductal carcinoma in situ at core-needle biopsy: meta-analysis of underestimation and predictors of invasive breast cancer. Radiology 260:119–128CrossRef Brennan ME, Turner RM, Ciatto S et al (2011) Ductal carcinoma in situ at core-needle biopsy: meta-analysis of underestimation and predictors of invasive breast cancer. Radiology 260:119–128CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Houssami N, Ambrogetti D, Marinovich ML et al (2011) Accuracy of a preoperative model for predicting invasive breast cancer in women with ductal carcinoma-in-situ on vacuum-assisted core needle biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol 18:1364–1371CrossRef Houssami N, Ambrogetti D, Marinovich ML et al (2011) Accuracy of a preoperative model for predicting invasive breast cancer in women with ductal carcinoma-in-situ on vacuum-assisted core needle biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol 18:1364–1371CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Kim J, Han W, Lee JW et al (2012) Factors associated with upstaging from ductal carcinoma in situ following core needle biopsy to invasive cancer in subsequent surgical excision. Breast 21:641–645CrossRef Kim J, Han W, Lee JW et al (2012) Factors associated with upstaging from ductal carcinoma in situ following core needle biopsy to invasive cancer in subsequent surgical excision. Breast 21:641–645CrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Schulz S, Sinn P, Golatta M et al (2013) Prediction of underestimated invasiveness in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast on percutaneous biopsy as rationale for recommending concurrent sentinel lymph node biopsy. Breast 22:537–542CrossRef Schulz S, Sinn P, Golatta M et al (2013) Prediction of underestimated invasiveness in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast on percutaneous biopsy as rationale for recommending concurrent sentinel lymph node biopsy. Breast 22:537–542CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Elshof LE, Tryfonidis K, Slaets L et al (2015) Feasibility of a prospective, randomised, open-label, international multicentre, phase III, non-inferiority trial to assess the safety of active surveillance for low risk ductal carcinoma in situ - the LORD study. Eur J Cancer 51:1497–1510CrossRef Elshof LE, Tryfonidis K, Slaets L et al (2015) Feasibility of a prospective, randomised, open-label, international multicentre, phase III, non-inferiority trial to assess the safety of active surveillance for low risk ductal carcinoma in situ - the LORD study. Eur J Cancer 51:1497–1510CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Francis A, Thomas J, Fallowfield L et al (2015) Addressing overtreatment of screen detected DCIS; the LORIS trial. Eur J Cancer 51:2296–2303CrossRef Francis A, Thomas J, Fallowfield L et al (2015) Addressing overtreatment of screen detected DCIS; the LORIS trial. Eur J Cancer 51:2296–2303CrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Hwang ES, Hyslop T, Lynch T et al (2019) The COMET (Comparison of Operative versus Monitoring and Endocrine Therapy) trial: a phase III randomised controlled clinical trial for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). BMJ Open 9:e026797CrossRef Hwang ES, Hyslop T, Lynch T et al (2019) The COMET (Comparison of Operative versus Monitoring and Endocrine Therapy) trial: a phase III randomised controlled clinical trial for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). BMJ Open 9:e026797CrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Bijker N, Donker M, Wesseling J, den Heeten GJ, Rutgers EJ (2013) Is DCIS breast cancer, and how do I treat it? Curr Treat Options Oncol 14:75–87CrossRef Bijker N, Donker M, Wesseling J, den Heeten GJ, Rutgers EJ (2013) Is DCIS breast cancer, and how do I treat it? Curr Treat Options Oncol 14:75–87CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 267:47–56CrossRef Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R et al (2013) Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 267:47–56CrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL et al (2014) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 311:2499–2507CrossRef Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL et al (2014) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 311:2499–2507CrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Greenberg JS, Javitt MC, Katzen J, Michael S, Holland AE (2014) Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:687–693CrossRef Greenberg JS, Javitt MC, Katzen J, Michael S, Holland AE (2014) Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:687–693CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Stomper PC, Connolly JL, Meyer JE, Harris JR (1989) Clinically occult ductal carcinoma in situ detected with mammography: analysis of 100 cases with radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 172:235–241CrossRef Stomper PC, Connolly JL, Meyer JE, Harris JR (1989) Clinically occult ductal carcinoma in situ detected with mammography: analysis of 100 cases with radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 172:235–241CrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Raghu M, Durand MA, Andrejeva L et al (2016) Tomosynthesis in the diagnostic setting: changing rates of BI-RADS final assessment over time. Radiology 281:54–61CrossRef Raghu M, Durand MA, Andrejeva L et al (2016) Tomosynthesis in the diagnostic setting: changing rates of BI-RADS final assessment over time. Radiology 281:54–61CrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Bahl M, Mercaldo S, Vijapura CA, McCarthy AM, Lehman CD (2019) Comparison of performance metrics with digital 2D versus tomosynthesis mammography in the diagnostic setting. Eur Radiol 29:477–484 Bahl M, Mercaldo S, Vijapura CA, McCarthy AM, Lehman CD (2019) Comparison of performance metrics with digital 2D versus tomosynthesis mammography in the diagnostic setting. Eur Radiol 29:477–484
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Doria MT, Maesaka JY, Soares de Azevedo Neto R, de Barros N, Baracat EC, Filassi JR (2018) Development of a model to predict invasiveness in ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed by percutaneous biopsy-original study and critical evaluation of the literature. Clin Breast Cancer 18:e805–e812 Doria MT, Maesaka JY, Soares de Azevedo Neto R, de Barros N, Baracat EC, Filassi JR (2018) Development of a model to predict invasiveness in ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed by percutaneous biopsy-original study and critical evaluation of the literature. Clin Breast Cancer 18:e805–e812
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Marques LC, Marta GN, de Andrade JZ, Andrade D, de Barros ACSD, Andrade FEM (2019) Is it possible to predict underestimation in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast? Yes, using a simple score! Eur J Surg Oncol 45:1152–1155 Marques LC, Marta GN, de Andrade JZ, Andrade D, de Barros ACSD, Andrade FEM (2019) Is it possible to predict underestimation in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast? Yes, using a simple score! Eur J Surg Oncol 45:1152–1155
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Bahl M, Gaffney S, McCarthy AM, Lowry KP, Dang PA, Lehman CD (2018) Breast cancer characteristics associated with 2D digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis for screening-detected and interval cancers. Radiology 287:49–57CrossRef Bahl M, Gaffney S, McCarthy AM, Lowry KP, Dang PA, Lehman CD (2018) Breast cancer characteristics associated with 2D digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis for screening-detected and interval cancers. Radiology 287:49–57CrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Lamb LR, Bahl M, Hughes KS, Lehman CD (2018) Pathologic upgrade rates of high-risk breast lesions on digital two-dimensional vs tomosynthesis mammography. J Am Coll Surg 226:858–867CrossRef Lamb LR, Bahl M, Hughes KS, Lehman CD (2018) Pathologic upgrade rates of high-risk breast lesions on digital two-dimensional vs tomosynthesis mammography. J Am Coll Surg 226:858–867CrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Soo MS, Baker JA, Rosen EL (2003) Sonographic detection and sonographically guided biopsy of breast microcalcifications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:941–948CrossRef Soo MS, Baker JA, Rosen EL (2003) Sonographic detection and sonographically guided biopsy of breast microcalcifications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:941–948CrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Bahl M, Maunglay M, D'Alessandro HA, Lehman CD (2019) Comparison of upright digital breast tomosynthesis-guided versus prone stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Radiology 290:298–304CrossRef Bahl M, Maunglay M, D'Alessandro HA, Lehman CD (2019) Comparison of upright digital breast tomosynthesis-guided versus prone stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Radiology 290:298–304CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Ductal carcinoma in situ on digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis: rates and predictors of pathologic upgrade
verfasst von
Geunwon Kim
Peter G. Mikhael
Tawakalitu O. Oseni
Manisha Bahl
Publikationsdatum
26.06.2020
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
European Radiology / Ausgabe 11/2020
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07021-2

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 11/2020

European Radiology 11/2020 Zur Ausgabe

Screening-Mammografie offenbart erhöhtes Herz-Kreislauf-Risiko

26.04.2024 Mammografie Nachrichten

Routinemäßige Mammografien helfen, Brustkrebs frühzeitig zu erkennen. Anhand der Röntgenuntersuchung lassen sich aber auch kardiovaskuläre Risikopatientinnen identifizieren. Als zuverlässiger Anhaltspunkt gilt die Verkalkung der Brustarterien.

S3-Leitlinie zu Pankreaskrebs aktualisiert

23.04.2024 Pankreaskarzinom Nachrichten

Die Empfehlungen zur Therapie des Pankreaskarzinoms wurden um zwei Off-Label-Anwendungen erweitert. Und auch im Bereich der Früherkennung gibt es Aktualisierungen.

Fünf Dinge, die im Kindernotfall besser zu unterlassen sind

18.04.2024 Pädiatrische Notfallmedizin Nachrichten

Im Choosing-Wisely-Programm, das für die deutsche Initiative „Klug entscheiden“ Pate gestanden hat, sind erstmals Empfehlungen zum Umgang mit Notfällen von Kindern erschienen. Fünf Dinge gilt es demnach zu vermeiden.

„Nur wer sich gut aufgehoben fühlt, kann auch für Patientensicherheit sorgen“

13.04.2024 Klinik aktuell Kongressbericht

Die Teilnehmer eines Forums beim DGIM-Kongress waren sich einig: Fehler in der Medizin sind häufig in ungeeigneten Prozessen und mangelnder Kommunikation begründet. Gespräche mit Patienten und im Team können helfen.

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.