We have located links that may give you full text access.
Breast cancer diagnosis in a specialised breast clinic: Are cancers detected by ultrasound alone less aggressive?
Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology 2019 Februrary
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between the way breast cancer is diagnosed and its prognostic features.
METHODS: We studied new primary invasive and non-invasive breast cancers (670) diagnosed between 2013 and 2015 where detection included at least clinical examination, mammography and breast ultrasound (BUS). The cancers were classified into six Diagnostic Groups according to the results of each modality.
RESULTS: Overall, 79% of cancers were positive on mammography, but another 20% were diagnosed on BUS after a negative mammogram. The largest group (37.6% of cases), had all three modalities positive (Group 1). BUS was the only modality positive in 14.6% (Group 4). Mammography alone was positive in 21.2%, of which 73.9% were ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Invasive lobular carcinoma comprised 9.6% of the groups where mammography was positive, but 16.5% of the groups where mammography was negative and BUS positive. Dense breast tissue was more common in the groups where mammography was negative and BUS positive. Invasive cancers comprised 82.7% of Group 4 and 95.2% of Group 1. For those in Group 4, the average size (10.2 mm) and the percentages with lymphovascular invasion (11.1%), lymph node involvement (17.3%) and poor differentiation (12.3%) were less than half the corresponding figures for Group 1 (27.3 mm, 35%, 44%, 44%).
CONCLUSION: This study illustrates the complementary benefits of mammography and BUS, especially where breast density is high. Tumours diagnosed by BUS alone had better prognostic features in terms of size, lymphovascular invasion, lymph node status, differentiation and hormone receptors, compared with cancers where all three modalities were positive.
METHODS: We studied new primary invasive and non-invasive breast cancers (670) diagnosed between 2013 and 2015 where detection included at least clinical examination, mammography and breast ultrasound (BUS). The cancers were classified into six Diagnostic Groups according to the results of each modality.
RESULTS: Overall, 79% of cancers were positive on mammography, but another 20% were diagnosed on BUS after a negative mammogram. The largest group (37.6% of cases), had all three modalities positive (Group 1). BUS was the only modality positive in 14.6% (Group 4). Mammography alone was positive in 21.2%, of which 73.9% were ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Invasive lobular carcinoma comprised 9.6% of the groups where mammography was positive, but 16.5% of the groups where mammography was negative and BUS positive. Dense breast tissue was more common in the groups where mammography was negative and BUS positive. Invasive cancers comprised 82.7% of Group 4 and 95.2% of Group 1. For those in Group 4, the average size (10.2 mm) and the percentages with lymphovascular invasion (11.1%), lymph node involvement (17.3%) and poor differentiation (12.3%) were less than half the corresponding figures for Group 1 (27.3 mm, 35%, 44%, 44%).
CONCLUSION: This study illustrates the complementary benefits of mammography and BUS, especially where breast density is high. Tumours diagnosed by BUS alone had better prognostic features in terms of size, lymphovascular invasion, lymph node status, differentiation and hormone receptors, compared with cancers where all three modalities were positive.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app