MAMMOGRAPHIC FEATURES OF FEMALE PATIENTS DIAGNOSED WITH BREAST CARCINOMA IN SITU

Thi Nguyễn Văn, Hữu Dương Đức

Main Article Content

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to describe the mammographic characteristics of female patients diagnosed with breast carcinoma in situ. Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted on 139 patients with DCIS at National Cancer Hospital from September 2019 to October 2024. Mammographic findings were described using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS), 5th edition (2013), and correlated with postoperative histopathological results. Results: The mean age of patients was 52 ± 11.4 years. DCIS accounted for 96.4% of cases, with high nuclear grade observed in 56%. Mammographic findings predominantly showed microcalcifications (77.7%), with pleomorphic (50.9%) and amorphous (23.1%) morphologies being the most common. These microcalcifications were typically distributed in segmental (46.3%) or grouped (39.8%) patterns. Mass lesions and architectural distortions were less frequently observed. Conclusion: The findings highlight the critical role of mammography in the early detection and diagnostic orientation of breast carcinoma in situ, which typically presents as pleomorphic or amorphous microcalcifications in segmental or grouped distributions.

Article Details

References

1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin. Jan 2023;73(1):17-48. doi:10.3322/caac.21763
2. Yamada T, Mori N, Watanabe M, et al. Radiologic-pathologic correlation of ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiographics. Sep 2010; 30(5):1183-98. doi:10.1148/rg.305095073
3. Sickles EA. Mammographic detectability of breast microcalcifications. AJR Am J Roentgenol. Nov 1982;139(5) :913-8. doi:10.2214/ajr. 139.5.913
4. Soo MS, Baker JA, Rosen EL. Sonographic detection and sonographically guided biopsy of breast microcalcifications. AJR Am J Roentgenol. Apr 2003;180(4):941-8. doi:10.2214/ajr.180.4. 1800941
5. Fowler EE, Sellers TA, Lu B, Heine JJ. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast composition descriptors: automated measurement development for full field digital mammography. Medical physics. Nov 2013;40(11):113502. doi:10.1118/1.4824319
6. Portschy PR, Marmor S, Nzara R, Virnig BA, Tuttle TM. Trends in incidence and management of lobular carcinoma in situ: a population-based analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. Oct 2013;20(10):3240-6. doi:10.1245/s10434-013-3121-4
7. van Luijt PA, Heijnsdijk EA, Fracheboud J, et al. The distribution of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) grade in 4232 women and its impact on overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening. Breast Cancer Res. May 10 2016;18(1):47. doi:10.1186/s13058-016-0705-5
8. Barreau B, de Mascarel I, Feuga C, et al. Mammography of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: review of 909 cases with radiographic-pathologic correlations. Eur J Radiol. Apr 2005; 54(1): 55-61. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2004. 11.019
9. Carlson KL, Helvie MA, Roubidoux MA, et al. Relationship between mammographic screening intervals and size and histology of ductal carcinoma in situ. AJR Am J Roentgenol. Feb 1999; 172(2): 313-7. doi:10.2214/ajr.172.2. 9930774
10. Evans A, Pinder S, Wilson R, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: correlation between mammographic and pathologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. Jun 1994;162(6):1307-11. doi:10.2214/ajr.162.6.8191988