Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Liberman, L.
Right arrow Articles by Dershaw, D. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Liberman, L.
Right arrow Articles by Dershaw, D. D.

Radiology, Vol 201, 443-446, Copyright © 1996 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Overdiagnosis of medullary carcinoma: a mammographic-pathologic correlative study

L Liberman, LR LaTrenta, B Samli, EA Morris, AF Abramson and DD Dershaw
Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10021, USA.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the mammographic features of medullary carcinoma, to determine the frequency of pathologic overdiagnosis of this neoplasm, and to assess whether mammography can distinguish true from atypical medullary carcinomas, since this distinction has important prognostic implications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review revealed 25 patients with an initial pathologic diagnosis of medullary carcinoma. Histopathologic slides and mammograms were reviewed. RESULTS: After review of histopathologic slides, 14 (56%) lesions were classified as medullary carcinomas and 11 (44%) as atypical medullary carcinomas. At mammography, a circumscribed mass was present in four of the 14 (28%) medullary carcinomas and in one of the 11 (9%) atypical medullary carcinomas (P = .34), an indistinct mass was present in seven of the 14 (50%) medullary carcinomas and in five of the 11 (45%) atypical medullary carcinomas (P = .86), and an obscured mass was present in two of the 14 (14%) medullary carcinomas and in three of the 11 (27%) atypical medullary carcinomas (P = .62). Calcification, which was present in one of the 11 (9%) atypical medullary carcinomas, and s spiculated border, which was present in one of the 11 (9%) atypical medullary carcinomas, were not observed in medullary carcinomas (P = .44). CONCLUSION: At mammography, medullary carcinoma was usually an uncalcified mass with indistinct or circumscribed borders. Atypical medullary carcinoma may be misdiagnosed as medullary carcinoma. Mammography could not reliably help distinguish true medullary carcinomas from atypical medullary carcinomas.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 RadiologyHome page
J. A. Harvey
Unusual Breast Cancers: Useful Clues to Expanding the Differential Diagnosis
Radiology, March 1, 2007; 242(3): 683 - 694.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JCOHome page
Y. Shen and M. Zelen
Screening Sensitivity and Sojourn Time From Breast Cancer Early Detection Clinical Trials: Mammograms and Physical Examinations
J. Clin. Oncol., August 1, 2001; 19(15): 3490 - 3499.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1996 by the Radiological Society of North America.