Comparison between Palpable and Nonpalpable Breast Cancers: Mammographic and Pathological Findings.
10.3348/jkrs.1999.41.1.181
- Author:
Min Jung KIM
1
;
Eun Kyung KIM
;
Sung Jun KIM
;
Ki Keun OH
;
Kyong Sik LEE
;
Byung Chan LEE
Author Information
1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Breast neoplasms, diagnosis;
Breast neoplasms, radiography
- MeSH:
Axilla;
Breast Neoplasms;
Breast*;
Carcinoma, Ductal;
Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating;
Hand;
Humans;
Lymph Nodes;
Neoplasm Metastasis
- From:Journal of the Korean Radiological Society
1999;41(1):181-186
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To analyze the differences in mammographic and pathologic findings between palpable and non-palpable breast carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Among 362 patients with surgically proven breast carcinoma, 317, whose chief com-plaint during preoperative evaluation was a palpable mass, Comprised group I, and 45 with no masses com-prised group II. We compared mammographic and pathologic findings between the two groups. RESULTS: As regards the pattern of mammographic presentation, mass alone accounted for 51.4 % of group I and 33.3 % of group II, while calcification alone was seen in 7.6 % of group I and 24.4 % of group II(p<0.05). In group I, 48.6 % of masses were of irregular shape, and in group II, 46.2 % were round. According to ACR-BIRADS, 47.6 % of group I was classified as category 5, and 51.1 % of group II as category 4 (p<0.05). On the other hand, the margin of the mass showed no statistical difference. Among the 362 patients, the mean age of group I was 48.1(range, 28 -79) years, while that of group II was 51. 7(range, 30 -73) years (p<0.05). Histologically, infiltrative ductal carcinoma was seen in 84.9% of group I, and DCIS in 8.5%, while for group II the respective figures were 62.2% and 28.9 % (p<0.05). For group I, mean lesional size was 3.01cm, with 4 7 .9 % lymph node metastasis in the axilla, while for group II the corresponding figures were 1.93 c m ( p < 0 . 0 5 ) and 28.2%(p<0.05). Differences were statistically significant. Under the TMN system, 30% of group I were at stage II, while 35.6 % of group II were at stage I (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Palpable and non-palpable cancers showed statistically significant differences in mammographic findings such as mass shape and category, but not in the margin of the mass. There were also statistically sig-nificant differences with regard to age, histology, lesion size, axillary lymph node metastasis, and staging.
