Top

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

Published in:

01-05-2020 | Ultrasound | Epidemiology

Ultrasound characteristics of sclerosing adenosis mimicking breast carcinoma

Authors: Wei Liu, Wei Li, Ziyao Li, Lei Shi, Peng Zhao, Zihong Guo, Jiawei Tian, Zhenzhen Wang

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 1/2020

Abstract

Background

Sclerosing adenosis (SA) is a benign lesion with complicated pathological components and could mimic breast carcinoma in both clinical palpation and medical imaging findings. The present study was conducted to assess the value of ultrasound (US) characteristics in diagnosing SA and their differentiation from breast carcinoma.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 305 women (347 lesions) with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) and 54 women with single SA lesion, who had breast excision between April 2016 and July 2018. US BI-RADS atlas and elastography were applied and their associated characteristics were compared between SA and IDC.

Results

The mean age of SA was younger than that of IDC (43.6 ± 7.4 vs 53.2 ± 10.3, P < 0.001). Compared to IDC, SA had more frequency of parallel orientation (94.44% vs 71.76%, P < 0.001) and circumscribed margin (48.15% vs 4.90%, P < 0.001), less frequency of irregular shape (64.81% vs 95.97%, P < 0.001), hypoechoic echotexture (88.89% vs 98.27%, P = 0.002), calcification (12.96% vs 55.04%, P < 0.001), and posterior acoustic changes (3.70% vs 53.89%, P < 0.001) or associated features (architectural distortion, 3.70% vs 59.65%, P < 0.001; duct changes, 18.52% vs 63.40%, P < 0.001). Vascularity absence was more common in SA compared to IDC (35.19% vs 6.63%, P < 0.001). And the elasticity score was lower in SA (2.38 ± 0.60 vs 3.91 ± 0.81, P < 0.001). After adjusting for age, we found spiculated margin, posterior shadowing, calcification, architectural distortion, and vascularity could independently identify the differences between these two entities. After involving elasticity score, the calcification and vascularity could still be independent indicators for differential diagnosis.

Conclusion

Understanding SA imaging features will enable radiologists to communicate results to the referring physician consistently, which could benefit a reliable assessment and specific management recommendations. A systematic evaluation of the US BI-RADS atlas together with breast elastography may be a powerful tool to identify SA and differentiate it from breast cancer.

Santen RJ, Mansel R (2005) Benign breast disorders. N Engl J Med 353(3):275–285CrossRef

Visscher DW, Nassar A, Degnim AC, Frost MH, Vierkant RA, Frank RD, Tarabishy Y, Radisky DC, Hartmann LC (2014) Sclerosing adenosis and risk of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 144(1):205–212CrossRef

DiPiro PJ, Gulizia JA, Lester SC, Meyer JE (2000) Mammographic and sonographic appearances of nodular adenosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175(1):31–34CrossRef

Nielsen NS, Nielsen BB (1986) Mammographic features of sclerosing adenosis presenting as a tumour. Clin Radiol 37(4):371–373CrossRef

Gunhan-Bilgen I, Memis A, Ustun EE, Ozdemir N, Erhan Y (2002) Sclerosing adenosis: mammographic and ultrasonographic findings with clinical and histopathological correlation. Eur J Radiol 44(3):232–238CrossRef

Chen YL, Chen JJ, Chang C, Gao Y, Wu J, Yang WT, Gu YJ (2017) Sclerosing adenosis: ultrasonographic and mammographic findings and correlation with histopathology. Mol Clin Oncol 6(2):157–162CrossRef

Makki J (2015) Diversity of breast carcinoma: histological subtypes and clinical relevance. Clin Med Insights Pathol 8:23–31PubMedPubMedCentral

Mendelson EB, Böhm-Vélez M, Berg WA et al (2013) ACR BI-RADS® ultrasound. ACR BI-RADS® atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA

Ophir J, Cespedes I, Ponnekanti H, Yazdi Y, Li X (1991) Elastography: a quantitative method for imaging the elasticity of biological tissues. Ultrason Imaging 13(2):111–134CrossRef

10.

Adler DD, Carson PL, Rubin JM, Quinn-Reid D (1990) Doppler ultrasound color flow imaging in the study of breast cancer: preliminary findings. Ultrasound Med Biol 16(6):553–559CrossRef

11.

Wang Z, Liu N, Zhang L, Li X, Han X, Peng Y, Dang M, Sun L, Tian J (2016) Real-time elastography visualization and histopathological characterization of rabbit atherosclerotic carotid arteries. Ultrasound Med Biol 42(1):176–184CrossRef

12.

Hartmann LC, Sellers TA, Frost MH, Lingle WL, Degnim AC, Ghosh K, Vierkant RA, Maloney SD, Pankratz VS, Hillman DW et al (2005) Benign breast disease and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 353(3):229–237CrossRef

13.

Cichon MA, Degnim AC, Visscher DW, Radisky DC (2010) Microenvironmental influences that drive progression from benign breast disease to invasive breast cancer. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 15(4):389–397CrossRef

14.

Cho SH, Park SH (2013) Mimickers of breast malignancy on breast sonography. J Ultrasound Med 32(11):2029–2036CrossRef

15.

Huang N, Chen J, Xue J, Yu B, Chen Y, Yang W, Shao Z, Wu J (2015) Breast sclerosing adenosis and accompanying malignancies: a clinicopathological and imaging study in a Chinese population. Medicine (Baltimore) 94(49):e2298CrossRef

16.

Fan L, Strasser-Weippl K, Li JJ, St Louis J, Finkelstein DM, Yu KD, Chen WQ, Shao ZM, Goss PE (2014) Breast cancer in China. Lancet Oncol 15(7):e279–289CrossRef

17.

Gill HK, Ioffe OB, Berg WA (2003) When is a diagnosis of sclerosing adenosis acceptable at core biopsy? Radiology 228(1):50–57CrossRef

18.

Chen JH, Nalcioglu O, Su MY (2008) Fibrocystic change of the breast presenting as a focal lesion mimicking breast cancer in MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 28(6):1499–1505CrossRef

19.

Guray M, Sahin AA (2006) Benign breast diseases: classification, diagnosis, and management. Oncologist 11(5):435–449CrossRef

Title: Ultrasound characteristics of sclerosing adenosis mimicking breast carcinoma
Authors: Wei Liu
Wei Li
Ziyao Li
Lei Shi
Peng Zhao
Zihong Guo
Jiawei Tian
Zhenzhen Wang
Publication date: 01-05-2020
Publisher: Springer US
Keywords: Ultrasound
Ultrasound
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 1/2020
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-05609-2

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Peritumoral edema as a biomarker of the aggressiveness of breast cancer: results of a retrospective study on a 3 T scanner

HER2 borderline is a negative prognostic factor for primary malignant breast cancer

LLY17, a novel small molecule STAT3 inhibitor induces apoptosis and suppresses cell migration and tumor growth in triple-negative breast cancer

Computed tomography-based analyses of baseline body composition parameters and changes in breast cancer patients under treatment with CDK 4/6 inhibitors

Racial differences in estrogen receptor staining levels and implications for treatment and survival among estrogen receptor positive, HER2-negative invasive breast cancers

Mitotic score and pleomorphic histology in invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: impact on disease-free survival

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer