Sonographic Findings of Mammary Duct Ectasia: Can Malignancy be Differentiated from Benign Disease / 한국유방암학회지

PURPOSE: This study was designed to investigate differences in ultrasonographic findings between malignant and benign mammary duct ectasia. METHODS: From January 2003 to June 2005, 54 surgically proven mammary duct ectasia lesions depicted on sonograms were included in this study. We evaluated the ultrasonographic (US) findings in terms of involved ductal location, size, margin, intraductal echogenicity, presence of an intraductal nodule, calcification, ductal wall thickening and echo changes of the surrounding breast parenchyma. The US findings were correlated with the pathological features. RESULTS: Of the 54 lesions, 46 lesions were benign and eight lesions were malignant. Benign lesions included an inflammatory change (n=7), ductal epithelial hyperplasia (n=7), fibrocystic change (n=18), intraductal papilloma (n=11), atypical ductal hyperplasia (n=2) and sclerosing adenosis (n=1). Malignant lesions included ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (n=6), infiltrating ductal carcinoma (n=1) and mucinous carcinoma (n=1). On US images, the peripheral ductal location, an ill-defined margin, ductal wall thickening and a hypoechoic change of the surrounding parenchyma were features significantly associated with malignant duct ectasia. CONCLUSION: For ill-defined peripheral duct ectasia with ductal wall thickening and surrounding hypoechogenicity as depicted on US, the possibility of malignancy should be considered and radiologists should not hesitate to recommend a prompt biopsy.

Non-Calcified Ductal Carcinoma in Situ: Ultrasound and Mammographic Findings Correlated with Histological Findings

PURPOSE: To evaluate radiological findings of non-calcified ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and to correlate those with histological features. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From July 2002 to March 2006, 22 patients with histologically-proven non-calcified DCIS were included. Mammography was obtained in 19 patients, ultrasound in 18 patients, and both examinations in 15 patients. Radiological findings were evaluated according to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System by American College of Radiology. Histological tumor subtype and Van Nuys classification of DCIS were assessed. RESULTS: Histological subtypes consisted of mixed type in 11 patients (50%), comedo in 4 (18%), cribriform in 4 (18%), papillary type in 2 (9%), and solid in one (5%). According to Van Nuys classification, group 3 DCIS was observed in 13 (59%) patients. In the 19 patients who underwent mammography, 13 patients presented with abnormal findings: focal asymmetry in 7 patients (37%), masses in 4 (21%), skin thickening in one (5%), and architectural distortion in one (5%). In the 18 patients who had received breast ultrasound, a mass was present in 15 (83%) patients and ductal changes in 3 patients (17%). Sixty percent of patients with masses on ultrasound had group 3 DCIS and 100% of patients with ductal change had group 1 DCIS (p=0.017). CONCLUSION: Diagnosis of non-calcified DCIS by mammography is not an easy task due to the lack of typical malignant calcifications or masses. High resolution ultrasound can be useful for detecting non-calcified DCIS, and ultrasound findings are correlated with histological features.