Predictive factors of invasive cancer in patients with biopsy

Predictive factors of invasive cancer in patients with biopsyproven ductal carcinoma in situ: an indicator to sentinel
lymph node biopsy in management of ductal carcinoma in
situ
Poster No.:
C-0925
Congress:
ECR 2011
Type:
Scientific Paper
Authors:
K. E. Lee, H. H. Kim, H. J. Shin, J. H. Cha, O. H. Woo; Seoul/KR
Keywords:
Breast, Mammography, Ultrasound, MR, Treatment effects,
Diagnostic procedure, Metastases
DOI:
10.1594/ecr2011/C-0925
Any information contained in this pdf file is automatically generated from digital material
submitted to EPOS by third parties in the form of scientific presentations. References
to any names, marks, products, or services of third parties or hypertext links to thirdparty sites or information are provided solely as a convenience to you and do not in
any way constitute or imply ECR's endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation of the
third party, information, product or service. ECR is not responsible for the content of
these pages and does not make any representations regarding the content or accuracy
of material in this file.
As per copyright regulations, any unauthorised use of the material or parts thereof as
well as commercial reproduction or multiple distribution by any traditional or electronically
based reproduction/publication method ist strictly prohibited.
You agree to defend, indemnify, and hold ECR harmless from and against any and all
claims, damages, costs, and expenses, including attorneys' fees, arising from or related
to your use of these pages.
Please note: Links to movies, ppt slideshows and any other multimedia files are not
available in the pdf version of presentations.
www.myESR.org
Page 1 of 18
Purpose
The purspose of this study is to determine whether imaging, clinical or pathologic features
can be used to predict LN metastasis and suggest sentinel LN biopsy (SLNB) in patients
with biopsy-proven DCIS.
Images for this section:
Fig. 1
Page 2 of 18
Fig. 2
Page 3 of 18
Fig. 3
Page 4 of 18
Methods and Materials
1. Patient selection
- From March 2004 to December 2009
- 487patients with biopsy proven DCIS
2. Patient evaluation
- Clinical evaluation
- Imaging evaluation
- pathological evaluation
3. Statistical analysis
Images for this section:
Page 5 of 18
Fig. 1
Page 6 of 18
Fig. 2
Page 7 of 18
Fig. 3
Page 8 of 18
Results
1. LN evaluation and follow-up
2. Histological underestimation
3. Histological LN evaluation
4. Significant predictive factors
- on univariate analysis
- on multivariate analysis
5. ROC analysis
Images for this section:
Page 9 of 18
Fig. 1
Page 10 of 18
Fig. 2
Page 11 of 18
Fig. 3
Page 12 of 18
Fig. 4
Page 13 of 18
Fig. 5
Page 14 of 18
Fig. 6
Page 15 of 18
Fig. 7: A 44 year-old female with left breast bloody nipple discharge.
Page 16 of 18
Fig. 8: A 56 year-old female with screening abnormality.
Page 17 of 18
Conclusion
1. SLNB can be performed appropriately in patients with biopsy proven DCIS
2. SLNB is not indicated in all patients with biopsy proven DCIS
- Because of low incidence of axillary L metastsis in pure DCIS
- If the patient has biopsy proven DCIS which is large size on USG,
SLNB should be performed.
References
1. Mittendorf ME, Arciero CA, Gutchell V, et al. Core biopsy diagnosis of ductal carcinoma
in situ: An indication for sentinel lymph node biopsy. Current surgery 2005; 62(2):
253-257.
2. Takacs T, Paszt A, Szentpali K, el al. Importance of sentinel lymph node biopsy in
surgical therapy of in situ breast cancer. Pathol. Oncol. Res. 2009; 15: 329-333.
3. Goyal A, Douglas-Jones A, Monypenny I, el al. Is there a role of sentinel lymph node
biopsy in ductal carcinoma in situ?: analysis of 587 cases. Breast cancer research and
treatment 2006; 98: 311-314.
4. Hung WK, Ying M, Chan M, el al. The impact of sentinel lymph node biopsy in
patients with a core biopsy diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast cancer. 2009;
s12282-009-0164-2
5. Sakr R, Antoine M, Barranger E, el al. Value of sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast
ductal carcinma in situ upstaged to invasive carcinoma. The breast journal 2008; 14(1):
55-60.
Personal Information
Page 18 of 18