Display options
Cite
Sannomiya N, Hattori Y, Ueda N, et al. Correlation between Ultrasound Findings of Tumor Margin and Clinicopathological Findings in Patients with Invasive Ductal Carcinoma of the Breast. Yonago Acta Med. 2016;59(2):163-8
Sannomiya, N., Hattori, Y., Ueda, N., Kamida, A., Koyanagi, Y., Nagira, H., Ikunishi, S., Shimabayashi, K., Hashimoto, Y., Murata, A., Sato, K., Hirooka, Y., Hosoya, K., Ishiguro, K., Murata, Y., & Hirooka, Y. (2016). Correlation between Ultrasound Findings of Tumor Margin and Clinicopathological Findings in Patients with Invasive Ductal Carcinoma of the Breast. Yonago acta medica, 59(2), 163-8.
Sannomiya, Naoko, et al. "Correlation between Ultrasound Findings of Tumor Margin and Clinicopathological Findings in Patients with Invasive Ductal Carcinoma of the Breast." Yonago acta medica vol. 59,2 (2016): 163-8.
Sannomiya N, Hattori Y, Ueda N, Kamida A, Koyanagi Y, Nagira H, Ikunishi S, Shimabayashi K, Hashimoto Y, Murata A, Sato K, Hirooka Y, Hosoya K, Ishiguro K, Murata Y, Hirooka Y. Correlation between Ultrasound Findings of Tumor Margin and Clinicopathological Findings in Patients with Invasive Ductal Carcinoma of the Breast. Yonago Acta Med. 2016 Jun 29;59(2):163-8. eCollection 2016 Jun. PMID: 27493488; PMCID: PMC4973023.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Yonago Acta Med. 2016 Jun 29;59(2):163-8. eCollection 2016 Jun.

Correlation between Ultrasound Findings of Tumor Margin and Clinicopathological Findings in Patients with Invasive Ductal Carcinoma of the Breast.

Yonago acta medica

Naoko Sannomiya, Yuiko Hattori, Naoyuki Ueda, Akira Kamida, Yuki Koyanagi, Haruki Nagira, Saeko Ikunishi, Kenta Shimabayashi, Yuki Hashimoto, Aya Murata, Kengo Sato, Yumi Hirooka, Keiko Hosoya, Kiyosuke Ishiguro, Yoko Murata, Yasuaki Hirooka

Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathobiological Science and Technology, School of Health Science, Tottori University Faculty of Medicine, Yonago 683-8503, Japan.
  2. †Division of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Tottori University Hospital, Yonago 683-8504, Japan.
  3. ‡Division of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Ichinomiyanishi Hospital, Ichinomiya 494-0001, Japan.

PMID: 27493488 PMCID: PMC4973023

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Breast ultrasound findings regarding tumor margins are crucial in judging whether a tumor is malignant or benign. However, the relationships between the margins and clinicopathological characteristics remain largely unknown. In this study, we examined the clinicopathological characteristics of patients with invasive ductal carcinoma whose ultrasound images showed either well-defined and rough or indistinct margins.

METHODS: Of all consecutive patients diagnosed with invasive ductal carcinoma at the Division of Breast and Endocrine Surgery of Tottori University Hospital from January 2012 to December 2014, 122 patients whose ultrasound images showed either "well-defined and rough" or "indistinct" tumor margins were included in this study. Mammography and ultrasound images taken at the initial examination were reviewed. Patients were divided into two groups based on ultrasound findings of the tumor margins: the "well-defined and rough group" and the "indistinct group." The relationships among ultrasound findings, mammography findings and clinicopathological findings were investigated in the two groups.

RESULTS: The well-defined and rough group was more likely to contain solid-tubular carcinoma, while the indistinct group was more likely to contain scirrhous carcinoma. The MIB-1 index was higher in the well-defined and rough group than in the indistinct group. Additionally, the proportion of patients with nuclear grade 3, estrogen receptor-negative/progesterone receptor-negative, and triple-negative breast cancer was greater in the well-defined and rough group than in the indistinct group.

CONCLUSION: Invasive ductal carcinomas with well-defined and rough margins on ultrasound were likely to be malignant and proliferative than those with indistinct margins.

Keywords: breast cancer; margin; ultrasound imaging

References

  1. Int J Cancer. 2002 Nov 1;102(1):91-5 - PubMed
  2. J Clin Ultrasound. 2013 Jan;41(1):10-7 - PubMed
  3. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005 Apr;184(4):1260-5 - PubMed
  4. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000 Jul;124(7):966-78 - PubMed
  5. Eur Radiol. 2010 May;20(5):1111-7 - PubMed
  6. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Sep;199(3):W402-8 - PubMed
  7. Clin Cancer Res. 2007 Apr 15;13(8):2329-34 - PubMed
  8. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2015 Nov-Dec;21(6):448-53 - PubMed
  9. Lancet Oncol. 2010 Feb;11(2):174-83 - PubMed
  10. Ann Oncol. 2013 Sep;24(9):2206-23 - PubMed
  11. J Clin Oncol. 2008 Mar 10;26(8):1275-81 - PubMed
  12. Histopathology. 2008 Jan;52(1):108-18 - PubMed
  13. Anticancer Drugs. 2014 Sep;25(8):950-7 - PubMed
  14. Australas Radiol. 2005 Dec;49(6):476-9 - PubMed
  15. Radiology. 1999 Dec;213(3):889-94 - PubMed
  16. J Clin Ultrasound. 2016 Jan;44(1):26-33 - PubMed
  17. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15(8):3555-9 - PubMed
  18. Clin Radiol. 2000 Jan;55(1):40-4 - PubMed
  19. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2015 Feb;41(2):375-83 - PubMed
  20. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2012 Mar;93(3):183-90 - PubMed

Publication Types