Figure - available from: Current Breast Cancer Reports
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Mammographic architectural distortion with ILC. An 87-year-old woman who was called back from screening mammography for right breast architectural distortion. A, B Right breast digital breast tomosynthesis craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique views show an area of architectural distortion (arrow) in the upper outer quadrant of the right breast. C Spot compression digital breast tomosynthesis image shows that the area of architectural distortion persists (arrow). D, E Grayscale sonographic images show a correlating irregular hypoechoic mass with spiculated margins. Ultrasound-guided biopsy was performed, with a diagnosis of ILC
Source publication
Purpose of Review
The primary goal of this review is to give an update on the radiologic and pathologic features of invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC), with an emphasis on recent studies related to the diagnosis of ILC. We review the imaging features of ILC and also discuss recommendations for avoiding potential pitfalls that can result in a delayed...
Similar publications
Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) accounts for up to 15% of all breast cancer (BC) cases and responds well to endocrine treatment when estrogen receptor α-positive (ER+) yet differs in many biological aspects from other ER+ BC subtypes. Up to 30% of patients with ILC will develop late-onset metastatic disease up to ten years after initial tumor diag...
Citations
Introduction
To compare diagnostic accuracy of contrast‐enhanced mammography (CEM) with standard 2D digital mammography (equivalent to low‐energy image; LEM) for detection of multifocal and multicentric breast cancer and evaluation of tumour size and disease extent for preoperative planning.
Methods
Biopsy proven breast cancer patients who underwent CEM preoperatively between January 2021 and January 2023 were included in this study. CEM and LEM images were independently reviewed by at least two blinded readers. Lesion location, number, size (maximal diameter) and extension across the midline and/or nipple invasion were recorded. Tumour number and size estimated on imaging were compared with final operative histology, which served as the gold standard.
Results
Forty‐nine patients (48 females and 1 male) and 50 cases (one patient had bilateral breast lesions) were included in the analysis. Median patient age was 60 (IQR 51, 69). CEM had significantly higher lesion detection rate compared with LEM, with sensitivities of 78% for LEM and 92% for CEM for the index tumour and 15% for LEM and 100% for CEM for multicentric and multifocal cancer. We found no statistically significant difference in median tumour size measurements on CEM and final surgical specimen ( P value = 0.97); however, a significant difference was identified in the tumour size measured on LEM and surgical specimen ( P value < 0.001).
Conclusion
CEM is superior to standard 2D digital mammography for detection of multifocal and multicentric breast cancer and is a reliable and more accurate method for estimating tumour size.
