Search

Purpose: To present the mammographic cases most commonly misinterpreted by the participants in the mammography self-test proposed by the Italian Society of Medical Radiology (SIRM) National Congress in Rimini, Italy, 2002, by analysing the findings responsible for errors, suggesting reasons for the errors, and assessing possible inadequacies in the format of the test., Materials and Methods: The self-test was performed on the mammograms of 160 cases (32 positive and 128 negative for cancer as confirmed by histology). The mammograms had been taken in the four standard projections and placed on four multi-panel diaphanoscopes, each displaying a set of 40 cases comprising benign and malignant cases in equal proportions. The participants were given pre-printed forms on which to note down their diagnostic judgement. We evaluated a total of 134 fully-completed forms. Among these, we identified the 23 cases most frequently misread by over 15 participants in percentages varying between 40-90%. Of these cases, 10 were malignancies and 13 were negative mammograms. On review, we also assessed the diagnostic contribution of complementary investigations (not available the participants)., Results: The 134 fully-completed forms (all of the 40 cases) yielded a total of 5360 responses, 1180 of which (22.01%) were incorrect. Of these, 823 out of the 4288 cases expected to be negative (19.2%) were false positive, and 357 out of the 1072 cases expected to be positive (33.3%) were false negative. As regards the 23 most frequently misread cases, these were 10/32 (31.25%) mammograms positive for malignancy and 13/128 (10.15%) negative mammograms or mammograms showing benign disease. The 10 malignancies included 7 infiltrating ductal carcinomas, 1 infiltrating cribriform carcinoma, 1 infiltrating tubular carcinoma, and 1 carcinoma in situ. The 13 cases of benign disease--as established by histology or long-term follow-up--mistaken for malignancies by the test participants were fibrocystic breast disease in 5 cases, surgical scar in 1 case, ABBI scar in 1 case, radial scar in 2 cases, microcalcifications that had remained stable for years in 2 cases, focal sclero-adenosis in 1 case and sclero-elastosis in 1 case., Conclusions: The errors were due to microcalcifications, benign disease simulating a neoplasm, overlapping tissue, visibility of a lesion in one projection only, lesion site in relation to the corpus mammae, missed areas of asymmetry. Attention must be paid to these signs of focal breast disease since, if correctly evaluated, they enable the early diagnosis of low-grade carcinomas that frequently carry a favourable prognosis.

Purpose: To investigate whether magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is superior to clinical palpation in the assessment of response of breast cancer to primary chemotherapy (PC)., Patients and Methods: Seventy-three patients with T2-4, N0, M0 breast cancer were treated with 3-4 cycles of single agent epirubicin before definitive surgery. MRI was performed at baseline condition and at the end of chemotherapy., Results: According to the WHO criteria, 20 (27.4%) patients attained a complete response (CR) by clinical palpation and 41 (56.2%) a partial response. The corresponding response rate by MRI was 11 (15.1%) and 34 (46.6%), respectively. Residual tumor assessed by MRI better correlated with pathologic measurements (Spearman r : 0.72) than residual tumor assessed by clinical palpation (Spearman r : 0.58). Post-chemotherapy histology evaluation revealed pathologic CR in three cases, only one of them was considered as complete responder by MRI. Residual disease consisted in in situ carcinoma in four cases, one of them was complete responder at MRI, the remaining three showed residual abnormal contrast enhancement indistinguishable from that of invasive tumors., Conclusions: As compared to pathology specimens, MRI is able to represent the extent of cancer more accurately than clinical palpation. It constitutes a promising technique in assessing the BC response to PC. The current limit of MRI is the scarce specificity in predicting the nature of residual disease., (Copyright 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers)

The response to primary chemotherapy is an important prognostic factor in patients with non metastatic breast cancer. In this study we compared the assessment of response performed by clinical palpation to that performed by echography and mammography in 141 out of 157 consecutive breast cancer patients (T2-4, N0-1, M0) submitted to primary chemotherapy. A low relationship was recorded between tumor size assessed clinically and that evaluated by either mammography: Spearman R = 0.38 or echography: R = 0.24, while a greater correlation was found between the tumor dimension obtained by the two imaging techniques (R = 0.62). According to the WHO criteria, the grade of response of breast cancer to primary chemotherapy, showed by mammography and echography, was less marked than the grade of response seen at clinical examination. Residual tumor size assessed clinically depicted a stronger correlation with pathological findings (R = 0.68) than the residual disease assessed by echography (R = 0.29) and mammography (R = 0.33). Post-chemotherapy histology evaluation revealed pathological complete response in three cases (2.1%). Two of these cases were judged as complete responders by clinical palpation but only one was recognized by mammography, and none by echography. Clinical response, but not the response obtained by the two imaging techniques, was a significant predictor for longer disease free survival (p = 0.04). To conclude, physical examination measurements remain the method of choice in evaluating preoperatively the disease response in trials of primary chemotherapy. Prediction of pathological outcome is not improved by echography and mammography.