Search

Background: The aim of our study was to establish which clinical, radiologic and pathologic factors could predict the risk of under- and overestimation of the breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) size when preoperatively measuring the maximum mammographic extent of microcalcifications (MEM)., Methods: We made a retrospective review of patients with a DCIS treated in our Breast Unit between May 2005 and May 2012. Clinical, pathologic and radiologic data were evaluated as possible predictive factors for over- or underestimation of DCIS size when measuring MEM., Results: We obtained precise measurements of MEM in 82 patients (84 DCIS lesions). Maximum MEM measurement correctly estimated maximum pathology size in 57 lesions (68.7 %). Patients with a correctly estimated DCIS, with an underestimated DCIS and with an overestimated DCIS significantly differed in DCIS ER expression (p = 0.022) and in maximum MEM measurement (p = 0.000). Constructing two ROC curves, we found that a maximum MEM measurement ≥25 mm and ER expression ≥90 % were both discrimination points for overestimation and ER ≤ 45 % was a discrimination point for underestimation. Using these cutoff points, we defined four groups of patients with different risks of over- and underestimation., Conclusions: Risk of over- or underestimation of DCIS size through MEM measurement depends on DCIS ER expression and MEM itself. Identifying which patients are at a significant risk of over- or underestimation could help the breast surgeon when discussing the surgical options with the patient.

Objective: To determine the clinical importance of repeating the Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) test when the result obtained falls between 2.7 and 0.8 pg/mL, the so-called "grey zone.", Study Design: Repeat testing was performed on 139 thin-layer liquid-based cytology cervicovaginal samples that were found to fall in the grey zone. The samples represented a variety of cytological diagnoses. The results of both HPV HC2 tests were analyzed related to the cytological diagnosis of both the previous and the follow-up cytological samples., Results: The change of the HPV HC2 result from positive (2.7-1 pg/mL) to negative (< 1 pg/mL) when repeating the test is not related with the diagnosis obtained in the cytological follow-up of the patient., Conclusion: The HC2 test should not be repeated when the result falls between 2.7 and 0.8 pg/mL. In these cases the result of the cytology is more relevant and should be used in the clinical assessment of the patient.