Comparison of mammography and ultrasound in detecting residual disease following bioptic lumpectomy in breast cancer patients

Wu,Xiufeng; Lin,Qingzhong; Lu,Jianping; Chen,Gang; Zeng,Yi; Lin,Yinglan; Chen,Ying; Wang,Yaoqin; Yan,Jun

doi:10.3892/mco.2016.729

Comparison of mammography and ultrasound in detecting residual disease following bioptic lumpectomy in breast cancer patients

Authors:
- Xiufeng Wu
- Qingzhong Lin
- Jianping Lu
- Gang Chen
- Yi Zeng
- Yinglan Lin
- Ying Chen
- Yaoqin Wang
- Jun Yan
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Surgery, Fujian Provincial Tumor Hospital, Teaching Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian 350014, P.R. China, Department of Pathology, Fujian Provincial Tumor Hospital, Teaching Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian 350014, P.R. China, Department of Radiology, Fujian Provincial Tumor Hospital, Teaching Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian 350014, P.R. China, Department of Ultrasound, Fujian Provincial Tumor Hospital, Teaching Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian 350014, P.R. China, Department of General Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510515, P.R. China
Published online on: January 14, 2016 https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2016.729
Pages: 419-424

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

Surgical biopsy is a method for diagnosing breast cancer. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the relative accuracies of mammography (MMG) and ultrasound (US) in predicting residual disease following bioptic lumpectomy. Each prediction method was compared with the gold standard of surgical pathology. The results of MMG and US from 312 consecutive breast cancer patients diagnosed by surgical excision were analyzed. All the patients underwent re‑excision mastectomy or lumpectomy and the imaging results were compared with the histopathological findings. The accuracy and sensitivity of each modality were investigated. A total of 312 patients with 312 primary breast cancers were investigated. Residual disease was identified in 118 patients. Of the 118 cases with residual disease, MMG and US were able to detect 77 (65.3%) and 32 (27.1%), respectively (chi‑square P<0.001). MMG was also more sensitive compared with US in estimating residual ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (94.2 vs. 33.3%, respectively; P<0.001). MMG was more accurate compared with US in detecting residual disease following bioptic lumpectomy and the diagnostic accuracy of MMG was associated with the presence of residual DCIS.

View Figures

View References

1	Corben AD, Edelweiss M and Brogi E: Challenges in the interpretation of breast core biopsies. Breast J. 16(Suppl 1): S5–S9. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Fan L, Strasser-Weippl K, Li JJ, St Louis J, Finkelstein DM, Yu KD, Chen WQ, Shao ZM and Goss PE: Breast cancer in China. Lancet Oncol. 15:e279–e289. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Osanai T, Gomi N, Wakita T, Yamashita T, Ichikawa W, Nihei Z and Sugihara K: US-guided core needle biopsy for breast cancer: Preliminary report. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 30:65–67. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Fishman JE, Milikowski C, Ramsinghani R, Velasquez MV and Aviram G: US-guided core-needle biopsy of the breast: How many specimens are necessary? Radiology. 226:779–782. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Menes TS, Tartter PI, Bleiweiss I, Godbold JH, Estabrook A and Smith SR: The consequence of multiple re-excisions to obtain clear lumpectomy margins in breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 12:881–885. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Jardines L, Fowble B, Schultz D, Mackie J, Buzby G, Torosian M, Daly J, Weiss M, Orel S and Rosato E: Factors associated with a positive reexcision after excisional biopsy for invasive breast cancer. Surgery. 118:803–809. 1995. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Gwin JL, Eisenberg BL, Hoffman JP, Ottery FD, Boraas M and Solin LJ: Incidence of gross and microscopic carcinoma in specimens from patients with breast cancer after re-excision lumpectomy. Ann Surg. 218:729–734. 1993. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, Carter WB, Bhargavan M, Lewis RS and Ioffe OB: Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology. 233:830–849. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Bosch AM, Kessels AG, Beets GL, Rupa JD, Koster D, van Engelshoven JM and von Meyenfeldt MF: Preoperative estimation of the pathological breast tumour size by physical examination, mammography and US: US: A prospective study on 105 invasive tumours. Eur J Radiol. 48:285–292. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Hieken TJ, Harrison J, Herreros J and Velasco JM: Correlating sonography, mammography and pathology in the assessment of breast cancer size. Am J Surg. 182:351–354. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Kald BA, Boiesen P, Ronnow K, Jonsson PE and Bisgaard T: Preoperative assessment of small tumours in women with breast cancer. Scand J Surg. 94:15–20. 2005.PubMed/NCBI
12	Madjar H, Ladner HA, Sauerbrei W, Oberstein A, Prömpeler H and Pfleiderer A: Preoperative staging of breast cancer by palpation, mammography and high-resolution US. US Obstet Gynecol. 3:185–190. 1993.
13	Yang WT, Lam WW, Cheung H, Suen M, King WW and Metreweli C: Sonographic, magnetic resonance imaging and mammographic assessments of preoperative size of breast cancer. J US Med. 16:791–797. 1997.
14	Wiley EL, Diaz LK, Badve S and Morrow M: Effect of time interval on residual disease in breast cancer. Am J Surg Pathol. 27:194–198. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Wiratkapun C, Wibulpholprasert B, Wongwaisayawan S and Pulpinyo K: Nondiagnostic core needle biopsy of the breast under imaging guidance: Result of rebiopsy. J Med Assoc Thai. 88:350–357. 2005.PubMed/NCBI
16	Wiley E and Keh P: Diagnostic discrepancies in breast specimens subjected to gross reexamination. Am J Surg Pathol. 23:876–879. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Wang JT, Chang LM, Song X, Zhao LX, Li JT, Zhang WG, Ji YB, Cai LN, Di W and Yang XY: Comparison of primary breast cancer size by mammography and sonography. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 15:9759–9761. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Golshan M, Fung BB, Wiley E, Wolfman J, Rademaker A and Morrow M: Prediction of breast cancer size by US, mammography and core biopsy. Breast. 13:265–271. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Keune JD, Jeffe DB, Schootman M, Hoffman A, Gillanders WE and Aft RL: Accuracy of ultrasonography and mammography in predicting pathologic response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Am J Surg. 199:477–484. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Boyages J, Recht A, Connolly J, Schnitt SJ, Gelman R, Kooy H, Love S, Osteen RT, Cady B, Silver B, et al: Early breast cancer: Predictors of breast recurrence for patients treated with conservative surgery and radiation therapy. Radiother Oncol. 19:29–41. 1990. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Chan KC, Knox WF, Sinha G, Gandhi A, Barr L, Baildam AD and Bundred NJ: Extent of excision margin width required in breast conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ. Cancer. 91:9–16. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Holland R, Connolly JL, Gelman R, Mravunac M, Hendriks JH, Verbeek AL, Schnitt SJ, Silver B, Boyages J and Harris JR: The presence of an extensive intraductal component following a limited excision correlates with prominent residual disease in the remainder of the breast. J Clin Oncol. 8:113–118. 1990.PubMed/NCBI
23	Aziz D, Rawlinson E, Narod SA, Sun P, Lickley HL, McCready DR and Holloway CM: The role of reexcision for positive margins in optimizing local disease control after breast-conserving surgery for cancer. Breast J. 12:331–337. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Schnitt SJ, Connolly JL, Khettry U, Mazoujian G, Brenner M, Silver B, Recht A, Beadle G and Harris JR: Pathologic findings on re-excision of the primary site in breast cancer patient considered for treatment by primary radiation therapy. Cancer. 59:675–681. 1987. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
25	Solin LJ, Fourquet A, Vicini FA, Haffty B, Taylor M, McCormick B, McNeese M, Pierce LJ, Landmann C, Olivotto IA, et al: Mammographically detected ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast treated with breast-conserving surgery and definitive breast irradiation: Long-term outcome and prognostic significance of patient age and margin status. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 50:991–1002. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
26	Cilotti A, Bagnolesi P, Moretti M, Gibilisco G, Bulleri A, Macaluso AM and Bartolozzi C: Comparison of the diagnostic performance of high-frequency US as a first- or second-line diagnostic tool in non-palpable lesions of the breast. Eur Radiol. 7:1240–1244. 1997. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
27	Jackson VP: The current role of ultrasonography in breast imaging. Radiol Clin North Am. 33:1161–1170. 1995.PubMed/NCBI
28	Wasif N, Garreau J, Terando A, Kirsch D, Mund DF and Giuliano AE: MRI versus ultrasonography and mammography for preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Am Surg. 75:970–975. 2009.PubMed/NCBI
29	Ernster VL and Barclay J: Increases in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast in relation to mammography: A dilemma. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 22:151–156. 1997.PubMed/NCBI
30	Miller AR, Brandao G, Prihoda TJ, Hill C, Cruz AB Jr and Yeh IT: Positive margins following surgical resection of breast carcinoma: Analysis of pathologic correlates. J Surg Oncol. 86:134–140. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI