Characterization of Molybdenum Target Roentgenography in Pure Type Mucinous Breast Carcinoma

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-5250.2012.04.015

Objective

To summarize the characterization of molybdenum target roentgenography in pure type mucinous breast carcinoma.

Methods

From January 2009 to 2011, 24 women with pure type mucinous breast carcinoma(observe group, n=24) and 30 women with adenofibroma(control group, n=30) were involved in this study, whose clinical data were collected and analyzed for molybdenum target roentgenography. The study protocol was approved by the Ethical Review Board of Investigation in Human Being of Second People's Hospital of Hainan Province.Informed consent was obtained from each patients.

Results

The disease course between two groups was statistically different(P<0.05). There had statistical differences in lesion density, lobulation and glands types between two groups(P<0.05), meanwhile no statistical difference was found in lesion size, edge, and the presence of calcification(P>0.05). The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive rates and negative predictive rates of molybdenum target roentgenography for pure type mucinous breast carcinoma was 54.17%(13/24), 86.67%(26/30), 76.47%(13/17) and 70.27%(36/37), respectively.

Conclusions

There were certain characteristics of molybdenum target roentgenography in the pure type mucinous breast carcinoma, which can increase diagnostic accuracy and decrease misdiagnosis rate.

Key words: breast carcinoma, myxoadenocarcinoma, molybdenum target roentgenography

表1 两组术前一般临床特征比较[n(%)]

Table 1 Comparison of clinical features between two groups before surgery[n(%)]

组别	n	扪及肿物	活动度			质地		病程
组别	n	扪及肿物	良好	欠佳	较差	质硬	质韧或软	≤1个月	1个月～1年	≥1年
观察组	24	22(91.7)	16(72.7)	4(18.2)	2(9.1)	16(72.7)	6(27.3)	13(59.1)	6(27.3)	3(13.6)
对照组	30	26(86.7)	25(96.2)	1 (3.8)	0(0.0)	19(73.1)	7(26.9)	6(20.0)	14(46.7)	10(33.3)
P	?	?	0.065			0.978		0.014

表1 两组术前一般临床特征比较[n(%)]

Table 1 Comparison of clinical features between two groups before surgery[n(%)]

组别	n	扪及肿物	活动度			质地		病程
组别	n	扪及肿物	良好	欠佳	较差	质硬	质韧或软	≤1个月	1个月～1年	≥1年
观察组	24	22(91.7)	16(72.7)	4(18.2)	2(9.1)	16(72.7)	6(27.3)	13(59.1)	6(27.3)	3(13.6)
对照组	30	26(86.7)	25(96.2)	1 (3.8)	0(0.0)	19(73.1)	7(26.9)	6(20.0)	14(46.7)	10(33.3)
P	?	?	0.065			0.978		0.014

表2 两组乳腺X射线钼靶影像表现比较[n(%)]

Table 2 Comparison of molybdenum target roentgenography results between two groups[n(%)]

乳腺X射线钼靶影像表现		观察组	对照组	P
密度		?	?	?
?	低	0 (0.0)	15(50.0)	0.000
?	稍高	19(79.2)	8(26.7)	?
?	高	5(20.8)	7(23.3)	?
直径(cm)		?	?	?
?	≤2	8(34.8)	18(60.0)	0.090
?	2～4	11(47.8)	11(36.7)	?
?	≥4	4(17.4)	1 (3.3)	?
边缘		?	?	?
?	光整	7(29.2)	17(56.7)	0.111
?	部分光整	13(54.2)	11(36.7)	?
?	毛糙	4(16.6)	2 (6.6)	?
分叶征		?	?	?
?	有	12(50.0)	4(13.3)	0.003
?	无	12(50.0)	26(86.7)	?
?	钙化	?	?	?
?	有	5(20.8)	6(20.0)	0.940
?	无	19(79.2)	24(80.0)	?
腺体分型		?	?	?
?	致密型	0 (0.0)	9(30.0)	0.011
?	混合型	19(79.2)	18(60.0)	?
?	脂肪型	5(20.8)	3(10.0)	?

表2 两组乳腺X射线钼靶影像表现比较[n(%)]

Table 2 Comparison of molybdenum target roentgenography results between two groups[n(%)]

乳腺X射线钼靶影像表现		观察组	对照组	P
密度		?	?	?
?	低	0 (0.0)	15(50.0)	0.000
?	稍高	19(79.2)	8(26.7)	?
?	高	5(20.8)	7(23.3)	?
直径(cm)		?	?	?
?	≤2	8(34.8)	18(60.0)	0.090
?	2～4	11(47.8)	11(36.7)	?
?	≥4	4(17.4)	1 (3.3)	?
边缘		?	?	?
?	光整	7(29.2)	17(56.7)	0.111
?	部分光整	13(54.2)	11(36.7)	?
?	毛糙	4(16.6)	2 (6.6)	?
分叶征		?	?	?
?	有	12(50.0)	4(13.3)	0.003
?	无	12(50.0)	26(86.7)	?
?	钙化	?	?	?
?	有	5(20.8)	6(20.0)	0.940
?	无	19(79.2)	24(80.0)	?
腺体分型		?	?	?
?	致密型	0 (0.0)	9(30.0)	0.011
?	混合型	19(79.2)	18(60.0)	?
?	脂肪型	5(20.8)	3(10.0)	?

表3 两组X射线钼靶诊断结果比较[n(%)]

Table 3 Comparison of molybdenum target roentgenography diagnostic results between two groups[n(%)]

组别	n	X射线钼靶影像诊断
组别	n	阳性结果	阴性结果
观察组	24	13(54.17)	11(45.83)
对照组	30	4(13.33)	26(86.67)
总计	54	17(31.48)	37(68.52)

表3 两组X射线钼靶诊断结果比较[n(%)]

Table 3 Comparison of molybdenum target roentgenography diagnostic results between two groups[n(%)]

组别	n	X射线钼靶影像诊断
组别	n	阳性结果	阴性结果
观察组	24	13(54.17)	11(45.83)
对照组	30	4(13.33)	26(86.67)
总计	54	17(31.48)	37(68.52)

[1]	Diab SG, Clark GM, Osborne CK, et al.Tumor characteristics and clinical outcome of tubular and mucinous breast carcinomas[J].J Clin Oncol, 1999, 5(19):1442-1448.
[2]	Peng YL, Wei B, Lv Q, et al.The diagnosis and misdiagnosis with CDFI of mucinous carcinoma of breast[J].West China Med J, 2007, 22(2):254-255.
[3]	Andrew AR.Can mucinous lesions of the breast be reliably diagnosed by core needle diopsy[J].Anatomic Pathol, 2002, 118:82-84.
[4]	Cui CY, Zhang L, Wu YP, et al. Mucinous carcinoma of breast: Mammographic features with histologic correlation[J]. J Diag Imag Inter Radiol, 2011, 20(3):225-228.
[5]	Yang M, Li X, Pang CH, et al.Clinlcopathologic features and treatment of pure mucinous breast carcinoma[J]. Chin J Endo Surg, 2011, 2(5):114-116.
[6]	Lacroix TM, Suarez PH, Mackay A, et al.Mucinous carcinoma of the breast is genetically distinct from invasive ductal carcinomas of no special type[J].J Pathol, 2010, 222:282-298.
[7]	Park S, Koo J, Kim JH, et al. Clinicopathological characteristics of mucinous carcinoma of the breast in Korea: Comparison with invasive ductal carcinoma-not otherwise specified[J].J Korean Med Sci, 2010, 25(3):361-368.

[1]	Yaping Jia, Shu'e Zeng. Ultrasound and pathological characteristics of breast metaplastic carcinoma containing squamous cell carcinoma components[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2023, 20(08): 844-848.
[2]	Ya-jun GAO, Xiang-jun MA, Hong-wei ZHANG, Jie WANG, Xiang-ping HE, Hai-feng GAO, Hong-yan LIU, Zhi-qing YAN. Comparative Study on Molybdenum Target X-Ray Radiography and Color Doppler Ultrasonography in Diagnosis of Breast Carcinoma in Situ[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2012, 08(01): 43-46.
[3]	Lingqin Yuan, Rong Zhang, Xuezhong Gao. Study on the relationship between the Polycomb Repressor Complex 2 protein complex core protein EZH2 and triple negative breast cancer[J]. Chinese Archives of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2015, 09(04): 273-275.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export