Dataset Information

Comparison of the Imaging Features of Lobular Carcinoma In Situ and Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast 유방의 소엽상피내암과 침윤성 소엽암의 영상의학적 소견 비교

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To investigate the usefulness of imaging features for differentiating between small lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) and invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC).

Materials and Methods

It included 52 female with LCISs (median 45 years, range 32–67 years) and 180 female with ILCs (median 49 years, range 36–75 years), with the longest diameter of ≤ 2 cm, who were evaluated between January 2012 and December 2016. All the female underwent mammography and ultrasonography. Twenty female with LCIS and 150 female with ILC underwent MRI. The clinical and imaging features were compared, and multivariate analysis was performed to identify the independent predictors of LCIS. Female with LCIS were also subgrouped by lesion size and compared with the female with ILC.

Results

Multivariate analysis showed that younger age [odds ratio (OR) = 1.100], smaller lesion size (OR = 1.103), oval or round shape (OR = 4.098), parallel orientation (OR = 5.464), and isoechotexture (OR = 3.360) were significant independent factors predictive of LCIS. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for distinguishing LCIS from ILC was 0.904 (95% confidence interval, 0.857–0.951). Subgroup analysis showed that benign features were more prevalent in female with smaller LCISs (≤ 1 cm) than in those with ILC.

Conclusion

Small LCISs tend to demonstrate more benign features than small ILCs. Several imaging features are independently predictive of LCIS.

SUBMITTER:

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9432355 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC) accounts for 10-15% of all invasive breast carcinomas. It is generally ER positive (ER+) and often associated with lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS). Genome-wide association studies have identified more than 70 common polymorphisms that predispose to breast cancer, but these studies included predominantly ductal (IDC) carcinomas. To identify novel common polymorphisms that predispose to ILC and LCIS, we pooled data from 6,023 cases (5,622 ILC, 401 pure LCIS) and 34,271 controls from 36 studies genotyped using the iCOGS chip. Six novel SNPs most strongly associated with ILC/LCIS in the pooled analysis were genotyped in a further 516 lobular cases (482 ILC, 36 LCIS) and 1,467 controls. These analyses identified a lobular-specific SNP at 7q34 (rs11977670, OR (95%CI) for ILC = 1.13 (1.09-1.18), P = 6.0 × 10(-10); P-het for ILC vs IDC ER+ tumors = 1.8 × 10(-4)). Of the 75 known breast cancer polymorphisms that were genotyped, 56 were associated with ILC and 15 with LCIS at P<0.05. Two SNPs showed significantly stronger associations for ILC than LCIS (rs2981579/10q26/FGFR2, P-het = 0.04 and rs889312/5q11/MAP3K1, P-het = 0.03); and two showed stronger associations for LCIS than ILC (rs6678914/1q32/LGR6, P-het = 0.001 and rs1752911/6q14, P-het = 0.04). In addition, seven of the 75 known loci showed significant differences between ER+ tumors with IDC and ILC histology, three of these showing stronger associations for ILC (rs11249433/1p11, rs2981579/10q26/FGFR2 and rs10995190/10q21/ZNF365) and four associated only with IDC (5p12/rs10941679; rs2588809/14q24/RAD51L1, rs6472903/8q21 and rs1550623/2q31/CDCA7). In conclusion, we have identified one novel lobular breast cancer specific predisposition polymorphism at 7q34, and shown for the first time that common breast cancer polymorphisms predispose to LCIS. We have shown that many of the ER+ breast cancer predisposition loci also predispose to ILC, although there is some heterogeneity between ER+ lobular and ER+ IDC tumors. These data provide evidence for overlapping, but distinct etiological pathways within ER+ breast cancer between morphological subtypes.