Journals / European Journal of Breast Health / 2022 / Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 2

Digital Mammography, Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Characteristics in Differential Diagnosis of Papillary Carcinoma Subtypes of the Breast and Diagnostic Challenges

Pages
172–181
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

US and MRI are complementary when revealing specific morphological characteristics.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: We aimed to investigate mammography (MG), ultrasound (US), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings of papillary breast carcinoma subtypes and to compare the diagnostic features and performance of the imaging method in distinguishing subtypes.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: Forty-two patients presenting with pathological diagnosis of 45 papillary carcinoma lesions, between 2014 and 2019, were included.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:US and MRI are complementary when revealing specific morphological characteristics.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2014 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: We aimed to investigate mammography (MG), ultrasound (US), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings of papillary breast carcinoma subtypes and to compare the diagnostic features and performance of the imaging method in distinguishing subtypes. Materials and Methods: Forty-two patients presenting with pathological diagnosis of 45 papillary carcinoma lesions, between 2014 and 2019, were included. Cases were assigned to five subgroups according to the latest World Health Organization (WHO) classification. The clinical characteristics (n = 45) and imaging features of each pathological subgroup were retrospectively related to imaging findings from US (n = 45), MG (n = 37), and breast MRI (n = 23), and further compared. Results: The finding of a palpable mass in all subgroups was more common than nipple discharge on clinical breast evaluation, and no significant difference was found between the subgroups. Irregular shape on MG (10/12, 83.3%, p = 0.039) and US (11/12, 91.7%, p = 0.039) was found more frequently in invasive micropapillary carcinoma (IMPC) compared to other subgroups. Circumscribed margins (4/5, 80%, p = 0.002) occurred more frequently in papillary ductal carcinoma in situ (pDCIS) and encapsulated papillary carcinoma (EPC) than in other subgroups (6/8, 75%, p = 0.002). Lower apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values were found in solid papillary cancer (SPC) than in other subgroups (ADC = 0.35 x 10-3, p = 0.017). Conclusion: Radiological findings of papillary carcinomas overlap with each other. US and MRI are complementary when revealing specific morphological characteristics.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZNUR, M., ÖZÇAĞLAYAN, T. İ. K. (2022). Digital Mammography, Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Characteristics in Differential Diagnosis of Papillary Carcinoma Subtypes of the Breast and Diagnostic Challenges. European Journal of Breast Health, Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 2, 172–181. https://ajindex.com/articles/510634

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. O’Malley FP, Visscher D, MacGrogan G, Tan PH, Ichihara S. Intraductal papilloma. In: Lakhani S, Ellis I, Schnitt SJ, Tan PH, van de Vijver MJ, editors. WHO Classification of Tumours of the Breast. 4th ed. Lyon: IARC Press
  2. p. 100-2. [Crossref ] 2. Tan PH, Schnitt SJ, van de Vijver MJ, Ellis IO, Lakhani SR. Papillary and neuroendocrine breast lesions: the WHO stance. Histopathology 2015
  3. (PMID: 24845113) [Crossref ] 3. Mulligan AM, O’Malley FP. Papillary lesions of the breast: a review. Adv Anat Pathol 2007
  4. (PMID: 17471117) [Crossref ] 4. Liberman L, Feng TL, Susnik B. Case 35: Intracystic papillary carcinoma with invasion. Radiology 2001
  5. (PMID:11376269) [Crossref ] 5. Brogi E, Horii R, Mac Grogan G, et al. Papillary Neoplasms. Breast Tumours. WHO Classification of Tumours, 5th Edition, Volume 2. WHO Classification of Tumours Editorial Board International Agency for Research on Cancer: Lyon
  6. p. 49-67. [Crossref ] 6. Tan PH, Ellis I, Allison K, Brogi E, Fox SB, Lakhani S, et al. The 2019 World Health Organization classification of tumours of the breast. Histopathology 2020
  7. (PMID: 32056259) [Crossref ] 7. Marchio C, Horlings HM, Vincent-Salomon A. Invasive Breast Carcinoma. Breast Tumours. WHO Classification of Tumours, 5th Edition, Volume 2. WHO Classification of Tumours Editorial Board International Agency for Research on Cancer: Lyon
  8. p. 128-130. [Crossref ] 8. Jagmohan P, Pool FJ, Putti TC, Wong J. Papillary lesions of the breast: imaging findings and diagnostic challenges. Diagn Interv Radiol 2013
  9. (PMID: 23996839) [Crossref ] 9. Eiada R, Chong J, Kulkarini S, Goldberg F, Muradali D. Papillary lesions of the breast: MRI, ultrasound, and mamographic apperances. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012
  10. (PMID: 22268167) [Crossref ] 10. You C, Peng W, Shen X, Zhi W, Yang W, Gu Y. Solid papillary carcinoma of breast: Magnetic resonance mamography, digital mammography, and ultrasound findings. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2018
  11. (PMID: 29613993) [Crossref ] 11. Nassar H, Qureshi H, Adsay NV, Visscher D. Clinicopathologic analysis of solid papillary carcinoma of the breast and associated invasive carcinomas. Am J Surg Pathol 2006
  12. (PMID: 16625097) [Crossref ] 12. Zhong E, Cheng E, Goldfischer M, Hoda SA. Papillary lesions of the male breast: A study of 117 cases and brief review of the literature demonstrate a broad clinicopathologic spectrum. Am J Surg