Skip to main content
PMC home page
British Journal of Cancer logoLink to British Journal of Cancer
. 1997;75(4):542–544. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1997.94

The detection of ductal carcinoma in situ at mammographic screening enables the diagnosis of small, grade 3 invasive tumours.

A J Evans 1, S E Pinder 1, D R Snead 1, A R Wilson 1, I O Ellis 1, C W Elston 1
PMCID: PMC2063314  PMID: 9052407

Abstract

This study was carried out to assess the frequency of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) occurring within and surrounding grade 3 invasive tumours and the effect of its detection on size and nodal stage of invasive carcinomas at mammographic detection. Grade 3 tumours with either no associated DCIS or DCIS only within the invasive component were significantly larger in size than tumours with surrounding DCIS (P < 0.02) and were less likely to be under or equal to 10 mm in size (0% or 13% vs 30% respectively, P < 0.02). Tumours with mammographic calcification were more likely to be less than or equal to 10 mm in size than non-calcific tumours (32% vs 11% respectively, P < 0.05). This was because of the high frequency of tumours less than or equal to 10 mm in size in the linear/branching calcification group. Tumours showing calcification without a mass also appear to be a group with good prognostic features, with a mean size of 13 mm, 33% being 10 mm or less in size and only 17% being node positive. We have found that the presence of surrounding DCIS enables earlier detection of grade 3 invasive carcinomas because of the presence of mammographically visible calcification. Detection of calcification suggestive of DCIS should remain an important part of mammographic screening.

Full text

PDF
542

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Anderson T. J., Lamb J., Alexander F., Lutz W., Chetty U., Forrest A. P., Kirkpatrick A., Muir B., Roberts M. M., Huggins A. Comparative pathology of prevalent and incident cancers detected by breast screening. Edinburgh Breast Screening Project. Lancet. 1986 Mar 8;1(8480):519–523. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90882-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Andersson I., Aspegren K., Janzon L., Landberg T., Lindholm K., Linell F., Ljungberg O., Ranstam J., Sigfússon B. Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: the Malmö mammographic screening trial. BMJ. 1988 Oct 15;297(6654):943–948. doi: 10.1136/bmj.297.6654.943. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bellamy C. O., McDonald C., Salter D. M., Chetty U., Anderson T. J. Noninvasive ductal carcinoma of the breast: the relevance of histologic categorization. Hum Pathol. 1993 Jan;24(1):16–23. doi: 10.1016/0046-8177(93)90057-n. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cowan W. K., Angus B., Henry J., Corbett I. P., Reid W. A., Horne C. H. Immunohistochemical and other features of breast carcinomas presenting clinically compared with those detected by cancer screening. Br J Cancer. 1991 Oct;64(4):780–784. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1991.398. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Ellis I. O., Galea M., Broughton N., Locker A., Blamey R. W., Elston C. W. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. II. Histological type. Relationship with survival in a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology. 1992 Jun;20(6):479–489. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.1992.tb01032.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Elston C. W., Ellis I. O. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology. 1991 Nov;19(5):403–410. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.1991.tb00229.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Evans A. J., Pinder S., Ellis I. O., Sibbering M., Elston C. W., Poller D. N., Wilson R. Screening-detected and symptomatic ductal carcinoma in situ: mammographic features with pathologic correlation. Radiology. 1994 Apr;191(1):237–240. doi: 10.1148/radiology.191.1.8134579. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Evans A., Pinder S., Wilson R., Sibbering M., Poller D., Elston C., Ellis I. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: correlation between mammographic and pathologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994 Jun;162(6):1307–1311. doi: 10.2214/ajr.162.6.8191988. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Holland R., Hendriks J. H., Vebeek A. L., Mravunac M., Schuurmans Stekhoven J. H. Extent, distribution, and mammographic/histological correlations of breast ductal carcinoma in situ. Lancet. 1990 Mar 3;335(8688):519–522. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(90)90747-s. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Ketcham A. S., Moffat F. L. Vexed surgeons, perplexed patients, and breast cancers which may not be cancer. Cancer. 1990 Feb 1;65(3):387–393. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19900201)65:3<387::aid-cncr2820650302>3.0.co;2-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Klemi P. J., Joensuu H., Toikkanen S., Tuominen J., Räsänen O., Tyrkkö J., Parvinen I. Aggressiveness of breast cancers found with and without screening. BMJ. 1992 Feb 22;304(6825):467–469. doi: 10.1136/bmj.304.6825.467. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Lampejo O. T., Barnes D. M., Smith P., Millis R. R. Evaluation of infiltrating ductal carcinomas with a DCIS component: correlation of the histologic type of the in situ component with grade of the infiltrating component. Semin Diagn Pathol. 1994 Aug;11(3):215–222. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Rosner D., Bedwani R. N., Vana J., Baker H. W., Murphy G. P. Noninvasive breast carcinoma: results of a national survey by the American College of Surgeons. Ann Surg. 1980 Aug;192(2):139–147. doi: 10.1097/00000658-198008000-00001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Smart C. R., Myers M. H., Gloeckler L. A. Implications from SEER data on breast cancer management. Cancer. 1978 Mar;41(3):787–789. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(197803)41:3<787::aid-cncr2820410301>3.0.co;2-e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Tabár L., Fagerberg G., Day N. E., Duffy S. W., Kitchin R. M. Breast cancer treatment and natural history: new insights from results of screening. Lancet. 1992 Feb 15;339(8790):412–414. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(92)90090-p. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from British Journal of Cancer are provided here courtesy of Cancer Research UK

RESOURCES