Correlation between imaging and pathology in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast

BACKGROUND: It is helpful in planning treatment for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) if the size and grade could be reliably predicted from the mammography. The aims of this study were to determine if the type of calcification can be best used to predict histopathological grade from the mammograms, to examine the association of mammographic appearance of DCIS with grade and to assess the correlation between mammographic size and pathological size. METHODS: Mammographic films and pathological slides of 115 patients treated for DCIS between 1986 and 2000 were reviewed and reclassified by a single radiologist and a single pathologist respectively. Prediction models for the European Pathologist Working Group (EPWG) and Van Nuys classifications were generated by ordinal regression. The association between mammographic appearance and grade was tested with the χ(2)-test. Relation of mammographic size with pathological size was established using linear regression. The relation was expressed by the correlation coefficient (r). RESULTS: The EPWG classification was correctly predicted in 68%, and the Van Nuys classification in 70% if DCIS was presented as microcalcifications. High grade was associated with presence of linear calcifications (p < 0.001). Association between mammograhic- and pathological size was better for DCIS presented as microcalcifications (r = 0.89, p < 0.001) than for DCIS presented as a density (r = 0.77, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Prediction of histopathological grade of DCIS presenting as microcalcifications is comparable using the Van Nuys and EPWG classification. There is no strict association of mammographic appearance with histopathological grade. There is a better linear relation between mammographic- and pathological size of DCIS presented as microcalcifications than as a density, although both relations are statistically significant

Pathological and Biological Differences Between Screen-Detected and Interval Ductal Carcinoma in situ of the Breast

Background: The incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has risen dramatically with the introduction of screening mammography. The aim was to evaluate differences in pathological and biological characteristics between patients with screen-detected and interval DCIS. Methods: From January 1992 to December 2001, 128 consecutive patients had been treated for pure DCIS at our institute. From these, 102 had been attending the Dutch breast cancer screening program. Sufficient paraffin-embedded tissue was available in 74 out of the 102 cases to evaluate biological marker expression (Her2/neu, ER, PR, p53 and cyclin D1) on tissue microarrays (TMA group). Differences in clinicopathological characteristics and marker expression between screen-detected and interval patients were evaluated. Screen-detected DCIS was classified as DCIS detected by screening mammography, when the two-year earlier examination failed to reveal an abnormality. Interval patients were classified as patients with DCIS detected within the two-year interval between two subsequent screening rounds. Results: Screen-detected DCIS was related with linear branching and coarse granular microcalcifications on mammography (p < .001) and with high-grade DCIS according to the Van Nuys classification (p = .025). In univariate analysis, screen-detected DCIS was related with Her2/neu overexpression (odds ratio [OR] = 6.5; 95%CI 1.3-31.0; p = .020), and interval DCIS was associated with low-grade (Van Nuys, OR = 7.3; 95% CI 1.6-33.3; p = .010) and PR positivity (OR = 0.3; 95%CI 0.1-1.0; p = .042). The multivariate analysis displayed an independent relation of Her2/neu overexpression with screen-detected DCIS (OR = 12.8; 95%CI 1.6-104.0; p = .018). Conclusions: These findings suggest that screen-detected DCIS is biologically more aggressive than interval DCIS and should not be regarded as overdiagnosis

Aggressiveness of 'true' interval invasive ductal carcinomas of the breast in postmenopausal women

There is debate whether interval carcinomas differ from screen-detected tumours biologically. In this study, clinico-pathological parameters and the expression of well-validated biological markers were compared between 'true' interval carcinomas and screen-detected/missed carcinomas hypothesising that 'true' interval carcinomas show a more aggressive biological behaviour. The study group consisted of 92 consecutive postmenopausal women attending the breast screening programme and presenting with an invasive ductal carcinoma. All screening mammograms were re-reviewed. Sixteen patients had a 'true' interval carcinoma. Seven carcinomas were missed at screening, but detected on re-reviewing of the screening mammogram. Radiological characteristics were assessed from diagnostic mammograms. Data on patient-and tumour characteristics and follow-up data were recorded from hospital records. Median follow-up was 61 months. Immunohistochemistry for ER, PR, Her2/neu and p53 was performed on TMA sections. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. In univariate analysis, 'true' interval carcinomas were significantly larger (odd ratios (OR) 7.2, 95% CI 1.8-28.1) and less frequently ER (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-0.9) and PR (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-1.0) positive. In multivariate analysis, 'true' interval carcinoma was independently associated with larger tumours (OR 7.0, 95% CI 1.4-36.2). A trend toward ER negativity was found (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-1.1). 'True' interval carcinomas showed a trend toward a decreased relapse-free survival (HR 1.7 95% CI 0.9-3.1). Although 'true' interval carcinomas were significantly larger than screen-detected/missed interval carcinomas, it remains challenging to observe parameters that determine this difference between 'true' interval carcinomas and screen-detected lesions. Modern Pathology (2010) 23, 629-636; doi:10.1038/modpathol.2009.188; published online 15 January 2010