Diagnostic Evaluations of Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Mammary Duct Ectasia and Breast Cancer

Overview

Journal Oncol Lett

Specialty Oncology

Date 2018 Feb 14

PMID 29434865

Citations 10

Authors

Lei Song

Liang Li

Bin Liu

Dexin Yu

Fengguo Sun

Mingming Guo

Zhengmin Ruan

Feixue Zhang

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The objective of the present study was to evaluate the diagnostic efficiency of ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of mammary duct ectasia (MDE) and breast cancer. This retrospective study was performed on 35 patients with MDE and 105 patients with breast cancer using US and MRI. Imaging features, semi-quantitative and quantitative parameters were analyzed to determine their diagnostic value for MDE and breast cancer. The average age of patients with breast cancer was increased compared with that of patients with MDE. There were no significant differences in local packages with or without tenderness ratio (P=0.259) and grade of color Doppler flow imaging (P=0.273) between the two groups. However, the morphological changes were significantly increased in breast cancer compared with MDE. In addition, there were significant diagnostic differences in US and MRI between breast cancer and MDE, including resistance index, US elastography, time-signal intensity curve, apparent diffusion coefficient, early-stage enhancement ratio, peak-of-enhancement ratio and T (P<0.05). However, there were no observable significant diagnostic differences between US, MRI and US with MRI for MDE and breast cancer (P=0.103, P=0.263 and P=0.403 respectively). Diagnosis of MDE and breast cancer requires full evaluation of multiple parameters and morphological changes of US and MRI to increase the diagnostic efficiency. US, MRI and US with MRI were all of diagnostic value for MDE and breast cancer, while US with MRI had the highest efficacy.

Citing Articles

Predicting pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer by clinicopathological indicators and ultrasound parameters using a nomogram.

Zhang T, Liu Y, Tian T Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):16348.

PMID: 39013971 PMC: 11252377. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-64766-2.

Ginsenoside Rg1 promotes neurite growth of retinal ganglion cells through cAMP/PKA/CREB pathways.

Jiang Y, Wei R, Tang K, Wang Z, Tan N J Ginseng Res. 2024; 48(2):163-170.

PMID: 38465221 PMC: 10920000. DOI: 10.1016/j.jgr.2022.05.002.

A hematological parameter-based model for distinguishing non-puerperal mastitis from invasive ductal carcinoma.

Wang Z, Hua L, Liu X, Chen X, Xue G Front Oncol. 2023; 13:1295656.

PMID: 38152369 PMC: 10751305. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1295656.

The Role of Nomogram Based on the Combination of Ultrasound Parameters and Clinical Indicators in the Degree of Pathological Remission of Breast Cancer.

Chen H, Qian H, Chen G, Zhu P, Sun C, Wu X J Oncol. 2023; 2023:3077180.

PMID: 36844869 PMC: 9950317. DOI: 10.1155/2023/3077180.

Biomedical Indicators of Patients with Non-Puerperal Mastitis: A Retrospective Study.

Shi L, Wu J, Hu Y, Zhang X, Li Z, Xi P Nutrients. 2022; 14(22).

PMID: 36432503 PMC: 9695051. DOI: 10.3390/nu14224816.

References

Zhang F, Yu D, Guo M, Wang Q, Yu Z, Zhou F . Ultrasound elastography and magnetic resonance examinations are effective for the accurate diagnosis of mammary duct ectasia. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015; 8(6):8506-15. PMC: 4538125. View

Brookes M, Bourke A . Radiological appearances of papillary breast lesions. Clin Radiol. 2008; 63(11):1265-73. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2008.02.012. View

Stanzani D, Chala L, de Barros N, Cerri G, Chammas M . Can Doppler or contrast-enhanced ultrasound analysis add diagnostically important information about the nature of breast lesions?. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2014; 69(2):87-92. PMC: 3912319. DOI: 10.6061/clinics/2014(02)03. View

Hsu H, Yu J, Hsu G, Chang W, Yu C, Tung H . Ultrasonographic alterations associated with the dilatation of mammary ducts: feature analysis and BI-RADS assessment. Eur Radiol. 2009; 20(2):293-302. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-009-1546-8. View

Alhabshi S, Rahmat K, Abdul Halim N, Aziz S, Radhika S, Gan G . Semi-quantitative and qualitative assessment of breast ultrasound elastography in differentiating between malignant and benign lesions. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2013; 39(4):568-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2012.10.016. View

Cheng J, Ding H, Du Y . [Granulomatous lobular mastitis associated with mammary duct ectasia: a clinicopathologic study of 32 cases with review of literature]. Zhonghua Bing Li Xue Za Zhi. 2014; 42(10):665-8. View

Yang M, Liu F, Gu X, Cai Y, Wang Y, Zhou W . [The application value of BI-RADS lexicon and high-frequency CDFI scoring in differentiation of benign from malignant lesions of the breast]. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2013; 93(23):1833-5. View

Yeh E, Slanetz P, Edmister W, Talele A, Monticciolo D, Kopans D . Invasive lobular carcinoma: spectrum of enhancement and morphology on magnetic resonance imaging. Breast J. 2003; 9(1):13-8. DOI: 10.1046/j.1524-4741.2003.09104.x. View

Sousa Rahal R, de Freitas-Junior R, da Cunha L, Moreira M, Rosa V, Conde D . Mammary duct ectasia: an overview. Breast J. 2011; 17(6):694-5. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2011.01166.x. View

10.

Fernandez-Guinea O, Andicoechea A, Gonzalez L, Gonzalez-Reyes S, Merino A, Hernandez L . Relationship between morphological features and kinetic patterns of enhancement of the dynamic breast magnetic resonance imaging and clinico-pathological and biological factors in invasive breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2010; 10:8. PMC: 2819997. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-10-8. View

11.

Masciadri N, Ferranti C . Benign breast lesions: Ultrasound. J Ultrasound. 2013; 14(2):55-65. PMC: 3558101. DOI: 10.1016/j.jus.2011.03.002. View

12.

Yamauchi H, Woodward W, Valero V, Alvarez R, Lucci A, Buchholz T . Inflammatory breast cancer: what we know and what we need to learn. Oncologist. 2012; 17(7):891-9. PMC: 3399643. DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2012-0039. View

13.

Duchesne N, Skolnik S, Bilmer S . Ultrasound appearance of chronic mammary duct ectasia. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2006; 56(5):297-300. View

14.

Del Cura J, Elizagaray E, Zabala R, Legorburu A, Grande D . The use of unenhanced Doppler sonography in the evaluation of solid breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005; 184(6):1788-94. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.184.6.01841788. View

15.

Howell A, Anderson A, Clarke R, Duffy S, Evans D, Garcia-Closas M . Risk determination and prevention of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2014; 16(5):446. PMC: 4303126. DOI: 10.1186/s13058-014-0446-2. View

16.

Woodhams R, Matsunaga K, Kan S, Hata H, Ozaki M, Iwabuchi K . ADC mapping of benign and malignant breast tumors. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2005; 4(1):35-42. DOI: 10.2463/mrms.4.35. View

17.

Zhu Y, Zhang S, Liu P, Lu H, Xu Y, Yang W . Solitary intraductal papillomas of the breast: MRI features and differentiation from small invasive ductal carcinomas. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012; 199(4):936-42. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.12.8507. View

18.

Suppiah S, Rahmat K, Rozalli F, Azlan C . Re: Improved diagnostic accuracy in differentiating malignant and benign lesions using single-voxel proton MRS of the breast at 3 T MRI. A reply. Clin Radiol. 2013; 69(2):e110-1. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2013.09.012. View

19.

Yuan H, Yu J, Chu Z, Peng L . [Distinguishing benign and malignant lesions with time-signal intensity curve of dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI scanning]. Sichuan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2011; 42(4):556-9. View

20.

Yabuuchi H, Matsuo Y, Okafuji T, Kamitani T, Soeda H, Setoguchi T . Enhanced mass on contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging: Lesion characterization using combination of dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR images. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008; 28(5):1157-65. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.21570. View