MEDULLARY CARCINOMA OF THE BREAST: ROENTGENOLOGIC AND ULTRASOUND SEMIOTICS

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common female cancer type and the leading cause of female cancer mortality in Russia and in majority countries of the world. Along with the most common type of BC – ductal carcinoma, there are a lot of histological types, distinguished by structure features, which lead to a variable clinical and instrumental semiotics.

These histological types of BC in the group marked out special types of BC, including medullary carcinoma. The concept of medullary cancer includes typical medullary BC, atypical medullary BC and invasive ductal BC with evidence of medullary morphology.

Based on the current literature data, the authors discuss the main epidemiological, clinical and morphological diagnostic features of medullary BC. The authors pay special influence pathological picture, forming the characteristic diagnostic features of medullary cancer detected using X-ray mammography and ultrasound of the breast – the basic techniques of BC and other breast diseases detection.

In 2003–2013 diagnosed 19 medullary BC cases in women aged 18–56 years, with 18 of them were recorded in patients aged 34–56 years. The authors describe in detail the features of clinical, mammographic and ultrasound semiotics of medullary BC. Article is focused on the main X-ray and ultrasound characteristics, such as mass shape and margin features, as well as its internal structure, and also the results of power Doppler. One of the main features of this article is description of ultrasound elastography pattern of medullary BC, which could be find in only a small number of scientific articles.

Typical medullary BC, atypical medullary cancer and ductal carcinoma with medullary signs have different prognosis. This problem leads to necessity find reliable distinguishing features in mammograpic and ultrasound semiotics. It is seems important to reveal sites with indistinct margin. We have found the indistinct margin detection is not statistically significant for the differential diagnosis of typical forms of medullary BC from atypical forms and invasive ductal BC with evidence of medullary structure.

The authors conclude that the mammographic and ultrasound semiotics of medullary BC makes accurate differential diagnosis with benign breast pathology by X-ray mammography as well as breast ultrasound impossible. There are no statistically significant differences in the results of the mammography and breast ultrasound in different histological types of medullary BC. So these diagnostic features are not reliable for the differential diagnosis. However, the application of a comprehensive usage of mammography and breast ultrasound using modern technology of ultrasound diagnosis allows to suspect BC.

1. Ferlay J., Soerjomataram I., Ervik M. et al. GLOBOCAN 2012 v. 1.0. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: IARC Cancer Base No. 11 [Internet]. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2013. URL: http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_ cancer.aspx. (Дата обращения 04.10.2014 г.).

2. Злокачественные заболевания в России в 2012 г. (заболеваемость и смертность). Под ред. А.Д. Каприна, В.В. Старинского, Г.В. Петровой. М.: ФГБУ «МНИОИ им. П.А. Герцена» Минздрава России, 2014. 250 с. [Malignant diseases in Russia in 2012 (incidence and morbidity). Ed. by A.D. Kaprin, V.V. Starinsky, G.V. Petrova. Moscow: P.A. Herzen Oncologic Rsearch Institute, Ministry of Health of Russia, 2014. 250 p. (In Russ.)].

3. Lakhani S.R., Ellis I.O., Schnitt S.J. et al. WHO classification of tumours of the breast. Lyon: IARC, 2012. Pр. 8–32, 46–7.

4. Dieci M.V., Orvieto E., Dominici M. et al. Rare breast cancer subtypes: histological, molecular, and clinical peculiarities. Oncologist 2014;19(8):805–13.

5. Федяева Л.М. Клинико-морфологиче- ская характеристика вариантов медулляр- ного рака молочной железы. Дис. ... д-ра мед. наук. Челябинск, 2010. 106 с. [Fedyaeva L.M. Clinical and morphological characteristic of breast medullary cancer variants. Thesis ... of doctor of medical sciences Chelyabinsk, 2010. 106 p. (In Russ.)].

6. Hashmi A.A., Edhi M.M., Naqvi H. et al. Clinicopathologic features of triple negative breast cancers: an experience from Pakistan. Diagn Pathol 2014;9(43). URL: http:// www.diagnosticpathology.org/content/9/1/43. (Дата обращения 10.10.2014 г.).

7. Larribe M., Thomassin-Piana J., Jalaguier- Coudray A. Breast cancers with round lumps: correlations between imaging and anatomopathology. Diagn Interv Imaging 2014;95(1):37–46.

8. Nigam J.S., Yadav P., Sood N. A retro- spective study of clinico-pathological spectrum of carcinoma breast in a West Delhi, India. South Asian J Cancer 2014;3(3):179–81.

9. Sandhu D.S., Sandhu S., Karwasra R.K., Marwah S. Profile of breast cancer patients at a tertiary care hospital in north India. Indian J Cancer 2010;47(1):16–22.

10. Высоцкая И.В., Ермилова В.Д., Летягин В.П. и др. Клинические и морфо- прогностические особенности редких гистологических типов рака молочной железы. М.: АБВ-пресс, 2011. 142 с. [Vysotskaya I.V., Ermilova V.D., Letyagin V.P. et al. Clinical and morphoprognostic properties of rare histological breast cancer types. Moscow: ABV-press, 2011. 142 p. (In Russ.)].

11. Anderson W.F., Pfeiffer R.M., Dores G.M., Sherman M.E. Comparison of age distribution patterns for different histopathologic types of breast carcinoma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15(10):1899–05.

12. Cao A.Y., He M., Huang L. et al. Clinicopathologic characteristics at diagnosis and the survival of patients with medullary breast carcinoma in China: a comparison with infiltrating ductal carcinoma-not otherwise specified. World J Surg Oncol 2013;11:91.

13. Park I., Kim J., Kim M. et al. Comparison of the characteristics of medullary breast carcinoma and invasive ductal carcinoma. J Breast Cancer 2013;16(4):417–25.

14. Galzerano A., Rocco N., Accurso A. et al. Medullary breast carcinoma in an 18-year-old female: report on one case diagnosed on fine- needle cytology sample. Diagn Cytopathol 2014;42(5):445–8.

15. Vu-Nishino H., Tavassoli F.A., Ahrens W.A., Haffty B.G. Clinicopathologic features and long-term outcome of patients with medullary breast carcinoma managed with breast- conserving therapy (BCT). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2005;62(4):1040–7.

16. Kennedy R.D., Boughey J.C. Management of pediatric and adolescent breast masses. Semin Plast Surg 2013;27(1):19–22.

17. Bertucci F., Finetti P., Cervera N. et al. Gene expression profiling and clinical outcome in breast cancer. OMICS 2006;10(4):429–43.

18. Vargas A.C., Da Silva L., Lakhani S.R. The contribution of breast cancer pathology to statistical models to predict mutation risk in BRCA carriers. Fam Cancer 2010;9(4):545–53.

19. Anderson W.F., Devesa S.S. In situ male breast carcinoma in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database of the National Cancer Institute. Cancer 2005;104(8):1733–41.

20. Sedighi A., Hamed E.A., Mohammadian K. et al. Clinicopathologic characteristics of male breast cancer: a report of 21 cases

21. in radiotherapy center of hamedan, iran. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2013;14(12):7381–3.

22. Gombos E.C., Kelemen K., Poppiti R.J. Jr. Infiltrating carcinoma with medullary features in the male breast: imaging and pathologic findings. Breast J 2004;10(6):548–9.

23. Flucke U., Flucke M.T., Hoy L. et al. Distinguishing medullary carcinoma of the breast from high-grade hormone receptor- negative invasive ductal carcinoma: an immunohistochemical approach. Histopathology 2010;56(7):852–9.

24. Foschini M.P., Eusebi V. Rare (new) entities of the breast and medullary carcinoma. Pathology 2009;41(1):48–56.

25. Oh J.W., Park S., Kim J.H. et al. Clinical analysis of medullary carcinoma of the breast. J Breast Cancer 2009;12:47–53.

26. Thurman S.A., Schnitt S.J., Connolly J.L. et al. Outcome after breast-conserving therapy for patients with stage I or II mucinous, medullary, or tubular breast carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;59(1):152–9.

27. Martinez S.R., Beal S.H., Canter R.J. et al. Medullary carcinoma of the breast: a population-based perspective. Med Oncol 2011;28(3):738–44.

28. Фишер У., Баум Ф., Люфтнер-Нагель С. Заболевания молочных желез. Пер. с англ. Под общ. ред. Б.И. Долгушина. М.: МЕД- пресс-информ, 2009. С. 181–3. [Fisher U., Baum F., Luftner-Nagel S. Direct Diagnosis in Radiology: Breast Imaging. Transl. from English. Under the general editorship of B.I. Dolgushin. Moscow: MEDpress- inform, 2009. Pp. 181–3. (In Russ.)].

29. Newcomer L.M., Newcomb P.A., Trentham- Dietz A. et al. Detection method and breast carcinoma histology. Cancer 2002;95(3):470–7.

30. Karan B., Pourbagher A., Bolat F.A. Unusual malignant breast lesions: imaging- pathological correlations. Diagn Interv Radiol 2012;18(3):270–6.

31. Kopans D.B. Breast Imaging. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2007. P. 862.

32. Yilmaz E., Lebe B., Balci P. et al. Comparison of mammographic and sonographic findings in typical and atypical medullary carcinomas of the breast. Clin Radiol 2002;57(7):640–5.

33. Заболоцкая Н.В., Заболоцкий В.С. Но- вые технологии в ультразвуковой маммо- графии. М.: ООО «Фирма СТРОМ», 2010. С. 216–8. [Zabolotskaya N.V., Zabolotsky V.S. New technologies in ultrasound mammo- graphy. Moscow: Firm “STROM” LLC, 2010. Pp. 216–8. (In Russ.)].

34. Fleury Ede F., Assuncao-Queiros Mdo C., Roveda D. Jr. Breast carcinomas: variations in sonoelastographic appearance. Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press) 2014;6: 135–43.

35. Parajuly S.S., Lan P.Y., Yan L. et al. Breast elastography: a hospital-based preliminary study in China. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2010; 11(3):809–14.

36. Sohn Y.M., Kim M.J., Kim E.K. et al. Sonographic elastography combined with conventional sonography: how much is it helpful for diagnostic performance? J Ultrasound Med 2009;28(4):413–20.

37. Athanasiou A., Tardivon A., Tanter M. et al. Breast lesions: quantitative elastography with supersonic shear imaging – preliminary results. Radiology 2010;256(1):297–303.