Clinical imaging · 2023
Outcomes and imaging features of microinvasive carcinoma and ductal carcinoma in situ: Matched cohort study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yoon Ga Young, Choi Woo Jung, Kim Hak Hee, Cha Joo Hee, Shin Hee Jung, Chae Eun Young
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to investigate the differences in clinical outcomes between microinvasive carcinoma (mIC) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and compare the imaging features of both using mammography, US and MRI.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by our institutional review board. Between January 2011 and December 2013, 516 women with mIC or DCIS confirmed by surgery were included. Patients were matched with propensity score matching to compare recurrence-free survival (RFS). RFS was compared using a Cox proportional hazards model. Imaging features were also compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: Among 516 women, 219 mIC and 297 DCIS tumors were identified. After matching, 132 women were allocated to each group. The mean follow-up duration was 80.2 months. In the matched cohort, no statistically significant association was observed between the DCIS and mIC groups in terms of total recurrence (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.8-4.0; P = 0.19), local-regional recurrence (HR: 3.4; 95% CI: 0.9-12.3, P = 0.07), or contralateral recurrence (HR: 0.9; 95% CI: 0.3-2.8, P = 0.89). Non-mass lesions at US (P = 0.004), moderate or marked background parenchymal enhancement (P = 0.04), and higher peak enhancement (P = 0.02) at MRI were more commonly seen in the mIC group than in the DCIS group.
CONCLUSION: Microinvasive carcinomas are distinct from DCIS in terms of imaging features, but no statistically significant association in recurrence survival.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by our institutional review board. Between January 2011 and December 2013, 516 women with mIC or DCIS confirmed by surgery were included. Patients were matched with propensity score matching to compare recurrence-free survival (RFS). RFS was compared using a Cox proportional hazards model. Imaging features were also compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: Among 516 women, 219 mIC and 297 DCIS tumors were identified. After matching, 132 women were allocated to each group. The mean follow-up duration was 80.2 months. In the matched cohort, no statistically significant association was observed between the DCIS and mIC groups in terms of total recurrence (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.8-4.0; P = 0.19), local-regional recurrence (HR: 3.4; 95% CI: 0.9-12.3, P = 0.07), or contralateral recurrence (HR: 0.9; 95% CI: 0.3-2.8, P = 0.89). Non-mass lesions at US (P = 0.004), moderate or marked background parenchymal enhancement (P = 0.04), and higher peak enhancement (P = 0.02) at MRI were more commonly seen in the mIC group than in the DCIS group.
CONCLUSION: Microinvasive carcinomas are distinct from DCIS in terms of imaging features, but no statistically significant association in recurrence survival.