Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE: To determine the frequency of stability in malignant microcalcifications and its relationship to specific histologic diagnoses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: During a 34-month period, microcalcifications were proved malignant in 182 patients referred for needle-guided biopsy. In 105 patients, the mammograms were compared with one or more than one previous mammogram. These patients were classified on the basis of interval change in two groups: those with stable and those with increasing or new microcalcifications. The histologic diagnoses were reviewed. RESULTS: Microcalcifications were stable for 8-63 months (mean, 25.4 months) in 26 patients (24.8%), only three (12%) of whom had invasive ductal carcinoma, which was found in 29 (37%) of the 79 patients with increasing or new microcalcifications. CONCLUSION: The odds for presence of invasive ductal carcinoma are statistically significantly lower (P < .025) among patients with stable microcalcifications than among those with increasing or new microcalcifications. Stability of indeterminate or suspicious microcalcifications is unreliable for exclusion of a diagnosis of malignancy.

BACKGROUND: Needle-guided breast biopsy has become a regularly recommended procedure to excise nonpalpable, questionable breast lesions detected by mammography. Whether cancers detected in this manner have a more favorable outcome than those detected by clinical examination is not clearly documented. METHODS: To address questions about the biology of mammographically detected cancer and likelihood of axillary node metastasis, as well as the accuracy of screening mammography, data from 3752 needle-guided breast biopsies and 1175 nonpalpable breast cancers were reviewed. RESULTS: Between 1974 and 1992, 3752 needle-guided biopsies were performed in 3441 women for nonpalpable breast lesions. Benign disease was disclosed in 2575 (68.7%) biopsies and malignancy in 1175 (31.3%). Of 1130 malignancies, 61.8% were invasive carcinomas; 4.8% were microinvasive ductal carcinomas; 28.5% were ductal carcinomas in situ; and 4.8% were lobular carcinomas in situ. Axillary dissection in 558 patients with invasive carcinoma revealed that 27.1% had at least one positive axillary node. Of patients with invasive cancers presenting as nonpalpable calcifications alone, 27.5% had at least one positive axillary node. CONCLUSIONS: More than one fourth of patients with nonpalpable, invasive cancer in this series had axillary node metastasis. Therefore, axillary dissection is an important treatment consideration for all patients with invasive carcinoma, despite technique of detection. Ductal carcinomas in situ detected as limited calcifications do not require axillary dissection. In this study, 31% of biopsies proved the presence of malignancy, an acceptable and appropriate benign-to-malignant ratio.

Within the past few years, the measurement of serum and tissue markers, especially the latter, has assumed a more significant role influencing clinical decisions about treatment and follow-up of patients with malignant disease. Breast cancer is a useful paradigm to illustrate the types and importance of these various markers. Tissue markers, including nuclear grade, steroid hormone receptors, DNA index, ploidy, expression of oncogenes or tumor-suppressor genes, epidermal growth factors, cathepsin D, proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA), Ki-67, p32, and others, may influence choices of initial treatment as well as adjuvant chemotherapy and (or) hormone administration. The serial measurement of serum markers, those currently available and those on the horizon, for example, may offer a way to monitor patients at risk for recurrent cancer. Although the current role of these markers may be controversial, as information about them is collected and refined, in the future perhaps a panel of such studies could be incorporated into forthcoming clinical staging systems for carcinoma of the breast and other malignancies to define both treatment and outcome.

BACKGROUND: Mammography has led to earlier detection of subclinical ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast either as nonpalpable calcifications or as an incidental finding in a biopsy performed for another reason. Many women in whom DCIS was detected early may not be destined to have an invasive carcinoma. How should subclinical DCIS be treated if that is the case? What is the role of excision and surveillance only as an alternative to mastectomy or irradiation? METHODS: All patients with DCIS detected as nonpalpable calcifications or as an incidental finding were eligible for this study. Diagnosis was confirmed, and the histologic subtype was determined. Results of postbiopsy mammography confirmed excision of calcifications; wide local reexcision and assessment of margins was also performed in most patients. The maximum diameter of calcifications considered suitable for this treatment was 25 mm. RESULTS: Between 1978 and 1990, 70 women (72 breasts) were entered into this study (mean follow-up time, 49 months; median follow-up time, 47 months). Of this group, 66% were detected as calcifications and 33% were detected as incidental findings. The recurrence rate was 15.3%. All but one of the patients who experienced a recurrence had the comedo type of DCIS as the initial lesion. Each of the recurrences was of the comedo type. All but one recurrence was at the same site as the primary lesion. None of the patients with DCIS as an incidental finding experienced a recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Excision and surveillance is a reasonable alternative to mastectomy or irradiation for selected women with DCIS that presents as nonpalpable calcifications or as an incidental finding.