Advertisement

Ultrasound Image Classification of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) of the Breast: Analysis of 705 DCIS Lesions1

Open AccessPublished:February 24, 2017DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2017.01.008

      Abstract

      The Japan Association of Breast and Thyroid Sonology (JABTS) proposed, in 2003, a conceptual classification system for non-mass abnormalities to be applied in addition to the conventional concept of masses, to facilitate detecting ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) lesions. The aim of this study was to confirm the utility of this system and to clarify the distribution of these findings in DCIS lesions. Data on 705 surgically treated DCIS lesions from 16 institutions in Japan were retrospectively reviewed. All 705 DCIS lesions could be classified according to the JABTS classification system. The most frequent findings were hypo-echoic areas in the mammary gland (48.6%), followed by solid masses (28.0%) and duct abnormalities (10.2%) or mixed masses (8.1%). Distortion (1.3%), clustered microcysts (1.4%) and echogenic foci without a hypo-echoic area (2.5%) were uncommon. These results suggest that the concept of non-mass abnormalities is useful in detecting DCIS lesions.

      Key Words

      Introduction

      Because of the widespread use of screening mammography, detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has increased. DCIS accounts for approximately 15% of newly diagnosed breast cancers in Japan (
      • Kosaka T.
      The usefulness of ultrasonography in a ductal carcinoma in situ screening program for Japanese woman.
      ). Furthermore, in the United States, DCIS accounts for 20% to 25% of all breast cancers (
      • Ernster V.L.
      • Barclay J.
      Increases in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast in relation to mammography: a dilemma.
      ,
      • Siziopikou K.P.
      Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: Current concepts and future directions.
      ).
      With advances in device-related technologies, breast ultrasound has become a more important modality in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Ultrasound is useful for the diagnosis not only of invasive breast cancer, but also of DCIS. However, as DCIS can appear in a wide variety of forms, an understanding of the variations is important for ultrasound detection and diagnosis. The ultrasound features of DCIS have been described in the literature. In general, the ultrasound findings of DCIS are classified into masses, ductal change (ductal abnormalities), calcification alone and architectural distortion (
      • Izumori A.
      • Takebe K.
      • Sato A.
      Ultrasound findings and histological features of ductal carcinoma in situ detected by ultrasound examination alone.
      ,
      • Park J.S.
      • Park Y.M.
      • Kim E.K.
      • Kim S.J.
      • Han S.S.
      • Lee S.J.
      • In H.S.
      • Ryu J.H.
      Sonographic findings of high-grade and non-high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.
      ,
      • Wang L.C.
      • Sullivan M.
      • Du H.
      • Feldman M.I.
      • Mendelson EB U.S.
      Appearance of ductal carcinoma in situ.
      ,
      • Yang W.T.
      • Tse G.M.K.
      Sonographic, mammographic, and histopathologic correlation of symptomatic ductal carcinoma in situ.
      ). However, in recent reports, non-mass abnormalities (or lesions) have also been described as a finding in DCIS (
      • Jin Z.Q.
      • Lin M.Y.
      • Hao W.Q.
      • Jiang H.T.
      • Zhang L.
      • Hu W.H.
      • Zhang M.
      Diagnostic evaluation of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: Ultrasonographic mammographic and histopathologic correlations.
      ,
      • Lee M.H.
      • Ko E.Y.
      • Han B.K.
      • Shin J.H.
      • Ko E.S.
      • Hahn S.Y.
      Sonographic findings of pure ductal carcinoma in situ.
      ,
      • Shin H.J.
      • Kim H.H.
      • Kim S.M.
      • Kwon G.Y.
      • Gong G.
      • Cho O.K.
      Screening-detected and symptomatic ductal carcinoma in situ: Differences in the sonographic and pathologic features.
      ).
      The Japan Association of Breast and Thyroid Sonology (JABTS) published guidelines for breast ultrasound in 2003 and proposed a conceptual classification system that incorporates both non-mass abnormalities (non-mass image-forming lesions) and the conventional concept of masses, mainly to facilitate DCIS detection (
      • Endo T.
      • Kubota M.
      • Konishi Y.
      • Shimamoto K.
      • Tanaka K.
      • Tsunoda H.
      • Hashimoto H.
      • Masuda N.
      • Mizutani M.
      • Morishima I.
      • Yasuda H.
      • Watanabe T.
      • Ueno E.
      Draft diagnostic guidelines for non-mass image-forming lesions by the Japan Association of Breast and Thyroid Sonology (JABTS) and the Japan Society of Ultrasonics in Medicine.
      ,
      Japan Association of Breast and Thyroid Sonology (JABTS)
      Guidelines for breast ultrasound: Management and diagnosis.
      ). The non-mass abnormalities are of five subtypes, including abnormalities of the ducts, hypo-echoic areas in the mammary gland and architectural distortion. These descriptions refer to the variations in ultrasound images of DCIS, in addition to masses. As this JABTS classification system has been widely used in Japan, we conducted a multicenter, retrospective observational study (JABTS BC-02 study) to confirm the utility of the JABTS classification system for DCIS image classification and to clarify the distribution of these findings in DCIS lesions.

      Methods

      Study design

      This was a retrospective observational multicenter study. Clinical data and static ultrasound images of DCIS patients who underwent surgery from January 2008 to December 2012 were collected. Patient DCIS data were collected even for cases in which DCIS lesions were not detectable by ultrasound. Collected images were evaluated by a Centralized Image Interpretation Committee.

      JABTS classification

      The JABTS classifies breast lesions primarily as masses and non-mass abnormalities. Non-mass abnormalities are defined as lesions that are not recognized as a mass.

      Masses

      Masses are further classified into the subtypes cystic (simple cyst), mixed and solid (Fig. 1). A mixed mass contains both cystic and solid components.
      Figure thumbnail gr1
      Fig. 1Typical solid mass and mixed mass images. (a) Solid mass. (b) Mixed mass. Both lesions are ductal carcinoma in situ.

      Non-mass abnormalities

      Duct abnormalities usually refer to ductal dilation accompanied by filling of the duct with a solid component (Fig. 2).
      Figure thumbnail gr2
      Fig. 2Typical images of abnormalities of the ducts. (a) A dilated duct with internal echoes. (b) A dilated duct with internal echoes accompanied by echogenic foci. Both lesions are ductal carcinoma in situ.
      Hypo-echoic areas in the mammary gland differ from the surrounding tissue and cannot be recognized as masses (Fig. 3). Because typical DCIS lesions that appear as hypo-echoic areas possess 3-D segmental or focal distributions, where focal means less than a breast segment, we consider the distribution of lesions to be the most important difference between hypo-echoic areas and masses. In contrast, masses usually do not possess such segmental or focal distributions. As with the concept of non-mass enhancements on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), lesion distribution is the most important factor to consider when applying the concept of hypo-echoic areas in the mammary gland on ultrasound.
      Figure thumbnail gr3
      Fig. 3Typical images of hypo-echoic areas in the mammary gland. Hypo-echoic areas in the mammary gland include patchy (a), geographic (b) and indistinct (c) types. The lesions in the lower images are outlined in white. Note that both ductal carcinoma in situ and normal tissue co-exist in these areas, and the hypo-echoic areas extend segmentally or focally within a single duct system in three-dimensional space. These three lesions are ductal carcinoma in situ.
      Architectural distortion is a term describing a lesion that distorts the breast tissue, but without mass formation (Fig. 4). Architectural distortion is often difficult to visualize on static images, but can easily be recognized at the time of hand-held ultrasound examination because the image moves in real time.
      Figure thumbnail gr4
      Fig. 4Typical image of the architectural distortion (ductal carcinoma in situ). Although recognizing distortion in the static image may be difficult, it is easily recognized at the time of the hand-held ultrasound examination because the images move in real time.
      Multiple small cysts are defined as multiple tiny or small cysts existing in the mammary gland. The distribution of such small cysts is important, in that a diffuse distribution suggests the lesion is benign, whereas a clustered or segmental distribution raises a small possibility of malignancy. The term clustered microcysts is used when multiple small cysts are observed clustered together (Fig. 5).
      Figure thumbnail gr5
      Fig. 5Typical image of clustered microcysts (ductal carcinoma in situ).
      Echogenic foci without a hypo-echoic area are lesions in which only microcalcifications are visible (Fig. 6). Because not all echogenic foci on ultrasound are ultimately confirmed to be microcalcifications on mammography or by histology, we herein employ the term echogenic foci, which is an ultrasound finding, rather than microcalcifications, which is a mammographic or histologic finding. Note that although DCIS with echogenic foci is generally accompanied by an obvious hypo-echoic area, this type of finding is not.
      Figure thumbnail gr6
      Fig. 6Typical image of echogenic foci without a hypo-echoic area (arrows).

      Centralized Image Interpretation Committee

      The Centralized Image Interpretation Committee comprised 14 breast ultrasound specialists in Japan, including 2 radiologists, 9 breast surgeons and 3 ultrasonographers. These specialists are also members of the Terminology and Diagnostic Criteria Committee of the JABTS. B-Mode images of each lesion were first analyzed by at least two members of the committee. Lesion type (mass or non-mass abnormality), subtypes, and other findings (for masses: shape, depth width ratio and margin; for non-masses: distribution and echogenic foci) were evaluated. When interpretation was difficult, the images were evaluated with the participation of all members. When a lesion was found to contain more than one subtype, the committee determined the single dominant type. When a mass and a non-mass abnormality were both present, the subtype of the mass, rather than that of the non-mass abnormality, was determined to be the dominant type. When multiple subtypes of non-mass abnormalities co-existed, the more extensive or prominent type was determined to be the dominant type.

      Institutional review board

      The institutional review board or ethics committee at each hospital approved this retrospective observational study. Informed consent was not required.

      Data collection and analysis

      Data collection and analysis were performed by the Clinical Research, Innovation, and Education Center of Tohoku University Hospital. This study is registered as No. UMIN000007604.

      Results

      From January 2008 to December 2012, 809 DCIS lesions were surgically treated at 16 institutions, and 705 (87%) of these lesions (691 women) were observed by ultrasound. The mean age of these 691 women was 56.6 ± 12.7 y (mean ± standard deviation). This set of 705 DCIS lesions was evaluated in this study.
      Mammography or ultrasound screening was the most frequent opportunity (57%) for DCIS detection. Patients had presented with symptoms such as masses and nipple discharge in 24% of the lesions. Eighteen percent were discovered incidentally, for example, at a follow-up examination or on further examination for various cancers (Table 1).
      Table 1Opportunities for detection of ductal carcinoma in situ
      Opportunityn (%)
      Screening402 (57.0%)
       Mammography262
       Ultrasound126
       Mammography + ultrasound14
      Any symptoms167 (23.7%)
       Mass126
       Nipple discharge35
       Mass + nipple discharge1
       Other5
      Accidental130 (18.4%)
       Mammography10
       Ultrasound21
       Mammography + ultrasound3
       Computed tomography15
       Magnetic resonance imaging15
       Positron emission tomography3
       Palpation24
       Other39
      Unknown6 (0.9%)
      In 17 (2%) of the 705 DCIS lesions, masses and non-mass abnormalities co-existed. In 260 (37%) lesions, only masses were observed and only non-mass abnormalities were observed in 428 (61%) lesions. Therefore, masses were observed in 277 (39%) lesions in total. The corresponding subtype frequencies are listed in Table 2. Counting was performed using two different methods: by considering the frequencies of all observed subtypes, and by considering only the frequency of the dominant type. Two or more subtypes were observed in 61 lesions (including 17 lesions in which masses and non-mass abnormalities co-existed). Two subtypes were observed in 59 lesions, and three subtypes were observed in 2 lesions. The resulting cumulative number of observed subtyped lesions found in the 705 DCIS lesions was 768. In the 17 lesions in which masses and non-mass abnormalities co-existed, the subtype of the mass was used as the dominant type. In 44 lesions in which two or more non-mass subtypes were observed, the Centralized Image Interpretation Committee determined the dominant type (Fig. 7). With both counting methods, hypo-echoic areas in the mammary gland were found to be the most frequent lesion, accounting for approximately 50% of DCIS lesions, followed by solid masses and abnormalities of the ducts or mixed masses as the second and third most frequent lesions. Architectural distortion, multiple small cysts and echogenic foci without a hypo-echoic area were rare.
      Table 2Frequencies of subtypes among ductal carcinoma in situ
      LesionsAll observed subtypes
      Two subtypes were observed in 59 DCIS lesions, and three subtypes were observed in 2 DCIS lesions.
      Dominant type
      In 17 DCIS lesions, with co-existing masses and non-mass abnormalities, the subtypes of the masses were used as the dominant type (11 solid masses and 6 mixed masses). In 44 DCIS lesions with two or more non-mass subtypes, the Centralized Image Interpretation Committee determined the dominant type.
      Masses277 (36.1%)277 (39.3%)
       Solid masses215 (28.0%)215 (30.5%)
       Mixed masses62 (8.1%)62 (8.8%)
      Non-mass abnormalities491 (63.9%)428 (60.7%)
       Abnormalities of the ducts78 (10.2%)57 (8.1%)
       Hypo-echoic areas in the mammary gland373 (48.6%)350 (49.6%)
       Architectural distortion10 (1.3%)6 (0.9%)
       Multiple small cysts (clustered microcysts)11 (1.4%)3 (0.4%)
       Echogenic foci without a hypo-echoic area19 (2.5%)12 (1.7%)
      Total768 (100%)705 (100%)
      DCIS = ductal carcinoma in situ.
      Two subtypes were observed in 59 DCIS lesions, and three subtypes were observed in 2 DCIS lesions.
      In 17 DCIS lesions, with co-existing masses and non-mass abnormalities, the subtypes of the masses were used as the dominant type (11 solid masses and 6 mixed masses). In 44 DCIS lesions with two or more non-mass subtypes, the Centralized Image Interpretation Committee determined the dominant type.
      Figure thumbnail gr7
      Fig. 7Dominant type. In this lesion, both abnormalities of the duct and hypo-echoic areas in the mammary gland are observed. The Centralized Image Interpretation Committee determined hypo-echoic areas in the mammary gland to be the dominant type in this lesion.
      All lesions that appeared as “multiple small cysts” also appeared as “clustered microcysts.”
      Of the 44 non-mass abnormalities in which multiple subtypes of non-mass lesions were observed, only 1 lesion contained three subtypes: abnormality of the duct, hypo-echoic areas in the mammary gland and multiple small cysts. Among the remaining 43 non-mass abnormalities, the most frequent finding was hypo-echoic areas in the mammary gland (38 lesions, 88%). Furthermore, the second most frequent finding was abnormalities of the ducts (24 lesions, 56%). In 21 of these 43 non-mass abnormalities, hypo-echoic areas in the mammary gland and abnormalities of the ducts co-existed (Table 3).
      Table 3Non-mass abnormalities with two subtypes of non-mass lesions (n = 43)
      HADisMSCsEFs
      AD21 (48.8%)012
      HA7 (16.3%)5 (11.6%)5 (11.6%)
      Dis01
      MSCs1
      AD = abnormalities of the ducts; HA = hypo-echoic areas in the mammary gland; Dis = Architectural distortion; MSCs = multiple small cysts; EFs = echogenic foci without a hypo-echoic area.
      Of the total 705 lesions, 26.4% were comedo type. This type displayed a relatively high rate of hypo-echoic areas in the mammary gland, whereas the rate of masses was low. Echogenic foci were observed in 38.4% of the 705 lesions, and were more frequent in lesions that appeared as abnormalities of the ducts or hypo-echoic areas in the mammary gland, than in lesions that appeared as masses (Table 4).
      Table 4Relationship between subtypes of ultrasound images and pathology/echogenic foci
      Masses
      Dominant type.
      Non-mass abnormalities
      Dominant type.
      MixedSolidAbnormalities of the ductsHypo-echoic areas in mammary glandArchitectural distortionClustered microcystsEchogenic foci without hypo-echoic areaTotal
      Pathology
       Comedo5 (8.1%)30 (14.0%)17 (29.8%)126 (36.0%)008 (66.7%)186 (26.4%)
       Non-comedo53 (85.5%)177 (82.3%)40 (70.2%)216 (61.7%)364 (33.3%)499 (70.8%)
       Unknown4 (6.5%)8 (3.7%)08 (2.3%)00020 (2.8%)
       Total62 (100%)215 (100%)57 (100%)350 (100%)3612 (100%)705 (100%)
      Echogenic foci
       Positive3 (4.8%)49 (22.8%)28 (49.1%)178 (50.9%)0112 (100%)271 (38.4%)
       Negative59 (95.2%)166 (77.2%)29 (50.9%)172 (49.1%)350434 (61.6%)
       Total62 (100%)215 (100%)57 (100%)350 (100%)3612 (100%)705 (100%)
      Dominant type.

      Discussion

      This was a multicenter study in which 16 institutions located across Japan participated. Furthermore, 14 breast ultrasound specialists analyzed the images. To our knowledge, this is the first multicenter study focusing on the ultrasound findings of DCIS. In our study, all 705 DCIS lesions could be classified according to the JABTS classification system. The most frequent findings were hypo-echoic areas in the mammary gland, followed by solid masses and abnormalities of the ducts or mixed masses, in that order, which collectively accounted for 97% of DCIS lesions. In contrast, distortion, multiple small cysts (clustered microcysts) and echogenic foci without a hypo-echoic area were uncommon findings and were associated with only 3% of DCIS lesions. Although the frequencies of these findings differed, our results indicated that DCIS appears in a wide variety of forms. Accordingly, a clear understanding of these ultrasound imaging variations is necessary to detect DCIS. In that regard, the histopathology of DCIS is useful for understanding these variations.
      Ductal carcinoma in situ is considered to develop primarily at a terminal duct lobular unit (TDLU) (
      • Wellings S.R.
      A hypothesis of the origin of human breast cancer from the terminal ductal lobular unit.
      ) and then to extend within the mammary ductal lobular system. This system consists of the TDLU, subsegmental duct, segmental duct, lactiferous sinus and collecting duct (
      • Allred D.C.
      Ductal carcinoma in situ: Terminology, classification, and natural history.
      ,
      • Ohuchi N.
      • Abe R.
      • Kasai M.
      Possible cancerous change of intraductal papillomas of the breast.
      ,
      • Wellings S.R.
      • Jensen H.M.
      • Marcum R.G.
      An atlas of subgross pathology of human breast with special reference to possible precancerous lesions.
      ). There are 15 to 20 ductal lobular systems within a breast. Studies using 3-D and computerized reconstruction have found that DCIS is mainly unicentric and extends along a complex, branching ductal lobular system in a pyramid-like shape toward the nipple (
      • Grin A.
      • Horne G.
      • Ennis M.
      • O'Malley F.P.
      Measuring extent of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast excision specimens: A comparison of 4 methods.
      ). The direction and extent of intra-ductal spreading are diverse (
      • Dadmanesh F.
      • Fan X.
      • Dastane A.
      • Amin M.B.
      • Bose S.
      Comparative analysis of size estimation by mapping and counting number of blocks with ductal carcinoma in situ in breast excision specimens.
      ,
      • Grin A.
      • Horne G.
      • Ennis M.
      • O'Malley F.P.
      Measuring extent of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast excision specimens: A comparison of 4 methods.
      ,
      • Ishida T.
      • Furuta A.
      • Moriya T.
      • Ohuchi M.
      Pathological assessment of intraductal spread of carcinoma in relation to surgical margin state in breast-conserving surgery.
      ,
      • Ohtake T.
      • Kimijima I.
      • Fukushima T.
      • Yasuda M.
      • Sekikawa K.
      • Takenoshita S.
      • Abe R.
      Computer-assisted complete three-dimensional reconstruction of the mammary ductal/lobular systems: Implications of ductal anastomoses for breast-conserving surgery.
      ). Furthermore,
      • Wellings S.R.
      • Jensen H.M.
      • Marcum R.G.
      An atlas of subgross pathology of human breast with special reference to possible precancerous lesions.
      reported that one of the histologic appearances of DCIS is due to the “unfolding” of the lobules. A rubber glove can be taken as an illustrative example, as the shape of the lobules is similar to that of a glove. If the glove is inflated like a balloon, the five fingers initially become evident; however, additional inflation gradually changes the glove shape to that of a large round balloon. This process represents the unfolding of the lobules. When this occurs in the TDLU, it is capable of forming a variety of solid or mixed DCIS masses of various sizes. We consider dilation of ducts, as well as the unfolding of the TDLU, caused by intra-ductal spreading, to be the fundamental elements of the morphologic changes in DCIS. A variety of combinations of these elements then yield various forms detectable on ultrasound images. The relationships between the histopathologic findings and ultrasound images of DCIS have not previously been studied. However, it is reasonable to speculate that when DCIS progresses mainly into the central or larger ducts and these ducts thereby enlarge, it becomes possible to visualize the lesion as abnormalities of the ducts. On the other hand, when it progresses mainly into the peripheral ducts and TDLU, detection as a hypo-echoic area in the mammary gland becomes possible. When DCIS progresses in the unfolding process mainly without extensive intra-ductal spreading, it may appear as a mass with a well-defined margin (Fig. 8).
      Figure thumbnail gr8
      Fig. 8Schematic of our concept of the relationship between ductal carcinoma in situ progression and ultrasound imaging findings. In our view, various combinations of these elements result in a variety of forms on ultrasound images.
      The ultrasound features of DCIS have previously been described in the literature, although the classifications vary slightly among authors. Ultrasound images of DCIS have been classified into masses, ductal change, calcification alone and architectural distortion (
      • Cho K.R.
      • Seo B.K.
      • Kim C.H.
      • Whang K.W.
      • Kim Y.H.
      • Kim B.H.
      • Woo O.H.
      • Lee Y.H.
      • Chung K.B.
      Non-calcified ductal carcinoma in situ: Ultrasound and mammographic findings correlated with histological findings.
      ,
      • Mesurolle B.
      • El-Khoury M.
      • Khetani K.
      • Abdullah N.
      • Joseph L.
      • Kao E.
      Mammographically non-calcified ductal carcinoma in situ: Sonographic features with pathological correlation in 35 patients.
      ,
      • Mun H.S.
      • Shin H.J.
      • Kim H.H.
      • Cha J.H.
      • Kim H.
      Screening-detected calcified and non-calcified ductal carcinoma in situ: Differences in the imaging and histopathological features.
      ,
      • Park J.S.
      • Park Y.M.
      • Kim E.K.
      • Kim S.J.
      • Han S.S.
      • Lee S.J.
      • In H.S.
      • Ryu J.H.
      Sonographic findings of high-grade and non-high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.
      ,
      • Wang L.C.
      • Sullivan M.
      • Du H.
      • Feldman M.I.
      • Mendelson EB U.S.
      Appearance of ductal carcinoma in situ.
      ,
      • Yang W.T.
      • Tse G.M.K.
      Sonographic, mammographic, and histopathologic correlation of symptomatic ductal carcinoma in situ.
      ). The finding of a ductal change is similar to abnormalities of the ducts in the JABTS classification. Most of the lesions that we classified into hypo-echoic areas in the mammary gland were classified as masses in those studies; in addition, the most frequent classification was masses.
      • Moon W.K.
      • Im J.G.
      • Koh Y.H.
      • Noh D.Y.
      • Park I.A.
      US of mammographically detected clustered microcalcifications.
      reported that the most common ultrasound features in DCIS are a microlobulated mass with mild hypo-echogenicity, ductal extension and normal acoustic transmission.
      • Mesurolle B.
      • El-Khoury M.
      • Khetani K.
      • Abdullah N.
      • Joseph L.
      • Kao E.
      Mammographically non-calcified ductal carcinoma in situ: Sonographic features with pathological correlation in 35 patients.
      reported that the most common sonographic features are masses with irregular shapes, microlobulated margins, abrupt interfaces and complex echotextures. These studies were not performed under the concept of “non-mass abnormalities.” However, if these authors had recognized this concept, the results of their studies might have been different.
      • Ueno E.
      • Tohno E.
      • Itoh K.
      Classification and diagnosis criteria in breast echography.
      divided echogenic images of breast disease into “non-tumor image-forming type” (non-mass abnormalities) and “tumor image-forming type” (masses); 70 of 562 breast lesions were non-tumor image-forming type. The authors reported that DCIS accounted for 7 of 135 malignant lesions, and 2 of these 7 DCIS lesions were non-tumor image-forming type. Three recent reports (
      • Jin Z.Q.
      • Lin M.Y.
      • Hao W.Q.
      • Jiang H.T.
      • Zhang L.
      • Hu W.H.
      • Zhang M.
      Diagnostic evaluation of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: Ultrasonographic mammographic and histopathologic correlations.
      ,
      • Lee M.H.
      • Ko E.Y.
      • Han B.K.
      • Shin J.H.
      • Ko E.S.
      • Hahn S.Y.
      Sonographic findings of pure ductal carcinoma in situ.
      ,
      • Shin H.J.
      • Kim H.H.
      • Kim S.M.
      • Kwon G.Y.
      • Gong G.
      • Cho O.K.
      Screening-detected and symptomatic ductal carcinoma in situ: Differences in the sonographic and pathologic features.
      ) focused on non-mass abnormalities. Shin et al. defined a non-mass lesion as one with minimal or no mass effect, a focal heterogeneity distinguished from the adjacent normal breast parenchyma or calcifications that are not associated with a mass.
      • Jin Z.Q.
      • Lin M.Y.
      • Hao W.Q.
      • Jiang H.T.
      • Zhang L.
      • Hu W.H.
      • Zhang M.
      Diagnostic evaluation of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: Ultrasonographic mammographic and histopathologic correlations.
      divided DCIS into mass-forming malignancies and non-mass-forming malignancies. The non-mass-forming lesions were classified into microcalcifications only, duct dilation and indistinct hypo-echoic areas. The frequencies of these non-mass abnormalities were reported to range from 11% to 42% in DCIS. In our study, approximately 60% of DCIS lesions were recognized as non-mass abnormalities. These results suggest the concept of non-mass abnormalities, along with that of masses, to be useful for describing DCIS.
      On MRI, there are three types of enhancing lesions: foci, masses and non-mass enhancement. The last is defined as enhancement of an area that is not a mass, and is classified according to the distribution of the enhancement as focal area, linear, segmental, multiple regions or diffuse. A segmental distribution refers to a triangular or cone-shaped area with the apex at the nipple (
      • Raza S.
      • Vallejo M.
      • Chikarmane S.A.
      • Birdwell R.
      Pure ductal carcinoma in situ: A range of MRI features.
      ). DCIS most commonly appears as a non-mass enhancement (60%–81%), and less frequently as a mass (14%–41%) or a focus (1%–12%), on MRI (
      • Ballard L.J.
      • Ballard G.R.
      High-grade ductal carcinoma in situ: An overview for the radiologist.
      ,
      • Greenwood H.I.
      • Heller S.L.
      • Kim S.
      • Sigmund E.E.
      • Shaylor S.D.
      • Moy L.
      Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breasts: Review of MR imaging features.
      ). According to our results, 61% of DCIS lesions appeared as non-mass abnormalities, whereas 39% appeared as masses, on ultrasound. This result is similar to those obtained in MRI studies. As with MRI, incorporating the concept of distribution into the ultrasound image classification is important. Although the distribution of lesions is easily recognized during real-time scanning, it is difficult to illustrate this distribution accurately to others using a static image. Therefore, examiners must accurately describe the distribution in their clinical reports. However, it is probably easier to show the distribution by using an automated whole-breast scan.

      Conclusions

      Approximately 60% of DCIS lesions appear as non-mass abnormalities. Among the subtypes of non-mass abnormalities diagnosed as DCIS, hypo-echoic areas in the mammary gland and abnormalities of the ducts were found to be very frequent. We conclude that the concept of non-mass abnormalities is as useful as that of masses for detecting DCIS lesions.

      Acknowledgments

      We are deeply grateful to Dr. Eisuke Hukuma and Ms. Miki Yamaguchi (Kameda Medical Center), Professor Ryuzou Sekiguchi (Tochigi Cancer Center), Dr. Miki Yamaguchi (Japan Community Health Care Organization Kurume General Hospital), Dr. Youichi Ishibe (Mizushima Kyodo Hospital) and Dr. Etsuo Takada (Dokkyo Medical University) for the collection of data. We extend our special thanks to Dr. Toshikazu Ito (Rinku General Medical Center Izumisano Municipal Hospital), Ms. Nobue Kawachi (St. Luke's International Hospital), Dr. Kazutaka Nakashima (Kawasaki Medical School), Professor Kiyoka Omoto (Jichi Medical University), Mr. Masahiko Tsuruoka (Moriya Keiyu Hospital) and Mr. Norikazu Obane (Sumitomo Hospital) for their work on the Centralized Image Interpretation Committee. We gratefully acknowledge the work of past and present members of the Clinical Research, Innovation, and Education Center of Tohoku University Hospital.

      References

        • Allred D.C.
        Ductal carcinoma in situ: Terminology, classification, and natural history.
        J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010; 41: 134-138
        • Ballard L.J.
        • Ballard G.R.
        High-grade ductal carcinoma in situ: An overview for the radiologist.
        J Am Osteopath Coll Radiol. 2013; 2: 18-25
        • Cho K.R.
        • Seo B.K.
        • Kim C.H.
        • Whang K.W.
        • Kim Y.H.
        • Kim B.H.
        • Woo O.H.
        • Lee Y.H.
        • Chung K.B.
        Non-calcified ductal carcinoma in situ: Ultrasound and mammographic findings correlated with histological findings.
        Yonsei Med J. 2008; 49: 103-110
        • Dadmanesh F.
        • Fan X.
        • Dastane A.
        • Amin M.B.
        • Bose S.
        Comparative analysis of size estimation by mapping and counting number of blocks with ductal carcinoma in situ in breast excision specimens.
        Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009; 133: 26-30
        • Endo T.
        • Kubota M.
        • Konishi Y.
        • Shimamoto K.
        • Tanaka K.
        • Tsunoda H.
        • Hashimoto H.
        • Masuda N.
        • Mizutani M.
        • Morishima I.
        • Yasuda H.
        • Watanabe T.
        • Ueno E.
        Draft diagnostic guidelines for non-mass image-forming lesions by the Japan Association of Breast and Thyroid Sonology (JABTS) and the Japan Society of Ultrasonics in Medicine.
        in: Ueno E. Shiina T. Kubota M. Sawai K. Research and development in breast ultrasound. Springer-Verlag, Tokyo2005: 89-100
        • Ernster V.L.
        • Barclay J.
        Increases in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast in relation to mammography: a dilemma.
        J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1997; 22: 151-156
        • Greenwood H.I.
        • Heller S.L.
        • Kim S.
        • Sigmund E.E.
        • Shaylor S.D.
        • Moy L.
        Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breasts: Review of MR imaging features.
        Radiographics. 2013; 33: 1569-1588
        • Grin A.
        • Horne G.
        • Ennis M.
        • O'Malley F.P.
        Measuring extent of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast excision specimens: A comparison of 4 methods.
        Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009; 133: 31-37
        • Ishida T.
        • Furuta A.
        • Moriya T.
        • Ohuchi M.
        Pathological assessment of intraductal spread of carcinoma in relation to surgical margin state in breast-conserving surgery.
        Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2003; 33: 161-166
        • Izumori A.
        • Takebe K.
        • Sato A.
        Ultrasound findings and histological features of ductal carcinoma in situ detected by ultrasound examination alone.
        Breast Cancer. 2010; 17: 136-141
        • Japan Association of Breast and Thyroid Sonology (JABTS)
        Guidelines for breast ultrasound: Management and diagnosis.
        Nankodo, Tokyo2003
        • Jin Z.Q.
        • Lin M.Y.
        • Hao W.Q.
        • Jiang H.T.
        • Zhang L.
        • Hu W.H.
        • Zhang M.
        Diagnostic evaluation of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: Ultrasonographic mammographic and histopathologic correlations.
        Ultrasound Med Biol. 2015; 41: 47-55
        • Kosaka T.
        The usefulness of ultrasonography in a ductal carcinoma in situ screening program for Japanese woman.
        J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30 (Abstract 24)
        • Lee M.H.
        • Ko E.Y.
        • Han B.K.
        • Shin J.H.
        • Ko E.S.
        • Hahn S.Y.
        Sonographic findings of pure ductal carcinoma in situ.
        J Clin Ultrasound. 2013; 41: 465-471
        • Mesurolle B.
        • El-Khoury M.
        • Khetani K.
        • Abdullah N.
        • Joseph L.
        • Kao E.
        Mammographically non-calcified ductal carcinoma in situ: Sonographic features with pathological correlation in 35 patients.
        Clin Radiol. 2009; 64: 628-636
        • Moon W.K.
        • Im J.G.
        • Koh Y.H.
        • Noh D.Y.
        • Park I.A.
        US of mammographically detected clustered microcalcifications.
        Radiology. 2000; 217: 849-854
        • Mun H.S.
        • Shin H.J.
        • Kim H.H.
        • Cha J.H.
        • Kim H.
        Screening-detected calcified and non-calcified ductal carcinoma in situ: Differences in the imaging and histopathological features.
        Clin Radiol. 2013; 68: 27-35
        • Ohtake T.
        • Kimijima I.
        • Fukushima T.
        • Yasuda M.
        • Sekikawa K.
        • Takenoshita S.
        • Abe R.
        Computer-assisted complete three-dimensional reconstruction of the mammary ductal/lobular systems: Implications of ductal anastomoses for breast-conserving surgery.
        Cancer. 2001; 91: 2263-2272
        • Ohuchi N.
        • Abe R.
        • Kasai M.
        Possible cancerous change of intraductal papillomas of the breast.
        Cancer. 1984; 54: 605-611
        • Park J.S.
        • Park Y.M.
        • Kim E.K.
        • Kim S.J.
        • Han S.S.
        • Lee S.J.
        • In H.S.
        • Ryu J.H.
        Sonographic findings of high-grade and non-high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.
        J Ultrasound Med. 2010; 29: 1687-1697
        • Raza S.
        • Vallejo M.
        • Chikarmane S.A.
        • Birdwell R.
        Pure ductal carcinoma in situ: A range of MRI features.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008; 191: 689-699
        • Shin H.J.
        • Kim H.H.
        • Kim S.M.
        • Kwon G.Y.
        • Gong G.
        • Cho O.K.
        Screening-detected and symptomatic ductal carcinoma in situ: Differences in the sonographic and pathologic features.
        AJR. 2008; 190: 516-525
        • Siziopikou K.P.
        Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: Current concepts and future directions.
        Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013; 137: 462-466
        • Ueno E.
        • Tohno E.
        • Itoh K.
        Classification and diagnosis criteria in breast echography.
        Jpn J Med Ultrasonics. 1986; 13: 19-31
        • Wang L.C.
        • Sullivan M.
        • Du H.
        • Feldman M.I.
        • Mendelson EB U.S.
        Appearance of ductal carcinoma in situ.
        Radiographics. 2013; 33: 213-228
        • Wellings S.R.
        A hypothesis of the origin of human breast cancer from the terminal ductal lobular unit.
        Pathol Res Pract. 1980; 166: 515-535
        • Wellings S.R.
        • Jensen H.M.
        • Marcum R.G.
        An atlas of subgross pathology of human breast with special reference to possible precancerous lesions.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 1975; 55: 23-73
        • Yang W.T.
        • Tse G.M.K.
        Sonographic, mammographic, and histopathologic correlation of symptomatic ductal carcinoma in situ.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004; 182: 101-110