The following abstract is drawn from a recently published paper in Human Pathology | Journal | ScienceDirect.com by Elsevier. We invite you to read the full paper and join the conversation, become a member of the Pathology News community to share your thoughts, ask questions, and engage with others around this work.

Authors: Bartosz Radzinski^a,b, Teresa Loebsin^a,c, Paul J. van Diest^d, Doreen Gläser^e, Ludwig Kiesel^f, Walter Heindel^a, Cornelia M. Focke^e

Abstract

Purpose
Disease extent is an independent risk factor for local recurrence in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast. Surgical strategies mainly depend on area size of microcalcifications in mammograms which, however, may differ considerably from final DCIS size found histopathologically. Our aim was to analyse the extent and causes of discrepancies between radiological and pathological DCIS size in breast conserving surgery (BCS) specimens.

Methods
The slices of the BCS specimens were radiographed in the department of radiology using digital technique without magnification. Microcalcifications area size in 276 slice radiographs of 46 BCS specimens was measured by two radiologists and compared to histological DCIS size in the large format slides of the matching slices. Size differences >5 mm were considered discrepant.

Results
216 BCS specimen slices contained microcalcifications, 228 slices contained DCIS. Positive predictive value of microcalcifications for DCIS was 0.77, negative predictive value was 0.86. Overestimation of DCIS size in the slice radiograph occurred in 58 (35%) and underestimation in 67 (40%) of 168 slices containing both DCIS and microcalcifications. Discrepancy rates of 6-9, 10-15, 16-19 and ≥ 20 mm between radiological and pathological DCIS extent were 20.8%, 14.9%, 8.9% and 19% for 168 slices containing DCIS and microcalcifications, respectively.

Conclusion
More than two thirds of DCIS sizes were radiologically either over- or underestimated in the slice radiographs. In 89.1% of the analysed 46 BCS specimens, discrepancies between radiological size of microcalcification area and histopathological DCIS extent did not exceed 15 mm. This should be considered in planning of BCS.

Read the full article: Radiological over- and underestimation of DCIS extent in breast conserving surgery specimens: radiological-pathological correlation in slice radiographs and respective histological large-format slides – ScienceDirect

^aClinic for Radiology – Reference Centre for Mammography Screening, University of Münster and University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, Münster, 48149, Germany

^bPrivate Practice for Radiology Pasewalk, Prenzlauer Chaussee 30, Pasewalk, 17309, Germany

^cDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Klinikum Südstadt Rostock, Südring 81, Rostock, 18059, Germany

^dDepartment of Pathology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, Utrecht, 3584 CX, the Netherlands

^eDepartment of Surgical Pathology, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Medical Centre, Allendestrasse 30, Neubrandenburg, 17036, Germany

^fDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics University Hospital of Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, Münster, 48149, Germany