Correlation Of FFDM Features With Pathology、CDFI In Breast Cancer

Part I Comparative study on the FFDM manifestations and pathological feathures of breast cancerObjective:To explore the value of FFDM in diagnosing breast carcinoma and analyze the correlation between FFDM manifestations and pathological feathures of breast cancer.Methods:Three hundred and seventy five cases of breast tumor confirmed by surgery and pathology were collected in the study. All the cases had been examined by FFDM before surgery. FFDM and pathological finds were analyzed to determine the correlation between them and to explore the value of FFDM in diagnosing breast carcinoma. The involved data was analyzed using statistics software of SPSS17.0.Results:1. Of all the cases, including242cases of breast carcinoma,133cases of benign tumor, mass was detected in174cases, calcification was noticed in117cases, architectural distortion in23cases, focal asymmetrical density in12cases, ductal sign in22cases. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of breast carcinoma for FFDM were93.1%.93.4%.92.5%,95.8%.88.5%. 2. Masses with irregular shape usually were malignant and there was a significant difference between breast carcinoma and benign tumor (P<0.01). Masses with infiltrative margin usually were malignant and the difference was significant (P<0.01). Calcifications with malignant shape, with clustered or segmental distribution were most commonly associated with carcinoma (P<0.01, P<0.05, respectively). Architectural distortion was more commonly seen in carcinoma (P<0.05).3. Most of features in infiltrating ductal carcinoma were simple mass or mass with calcification, while in DCIS were simple calcification. The difference was significant (P<0.05). Most of mass margin in mucinous carcinoma and medullary carcinoma were circumscribed. According to margin of mass or distribution of calcification, there was significant difference between all pathological types of breast carcinoma (P<0.01, P<0.05, respectively).4. Histological grade was similar between carcinoma with and without mass, calcification or focal asymmetrical density (P>0.05). Grade â…¢ was more likely to be associated with spiculated mass, irregular mass and architectural distortion than grade â…  and â…¡. There was significant relation among mass shape, mass margin, architecture distortion and histological grade of carcinoma (P<0.01).Conclusion:1. FFDM has great value in diagnosis of breast cancer.2. Pathological type and histological grade of breast carcinoma are related to mass, calcification and other features.Part â…¡ Comparative study on FFDM and CDFI in diagnosis of breast cancerObjective:To assess the value of FFDM. CDFI and combination of both modalities in diagnosis of breast carcinoma.Methods:Two hundred and fourteen cases of breast tumor confirmed by surgery and pathology. All cases had been examined by FFDM and CDFI preoperatively and were divided two groups by clinical stage and age respectively. FFDM and CDFI finds were analyzed to assess the value of FFDM, CDFI and combination of both modalities in diagnosis of breast carcinoma. The statistical analysises were conducted with the statistics software of SPSS17.0.Results:1. Of all the cases, there were143cases of breast carcinoma and71cases of benign tumor. The accuracy of breast carcinoma for FFDM, CDFI and combination of both modalities were85.5%,83.6%and91.1%respectively. The sensitivity of breast carcinoma for them were84.6%,82.5%and91.6%respectively. The specificity of breast carcinoma for them were87.3%,85.9%and90.1%respectively. There was no difference between FFDM and CDFI (P>0.05). The difference of accuracy and sensitivity were significant between combination of both modalities and either modality (P<0.01).2. Of the total143cases of breast carcinoma, there were62cases of early breast carcinoma and81cases of advanced breast carcinoma. The accuracy of early breast carcinoma for FFDM, CDFI and combination of both modalities were84.2%,79.7%,88.7%, the sensitivity were80.6%,75.6%,87.1%, the specificity were87.3%,85.9%,90.1%. The accuracy of advanced breast carcinoma for FFDM, CDFI and combination of both modalities were87.5%,88.2%,92.8%, the sensitivity were87.7%,90.1%,95.1%, the specificity were87.3%,85.9%,90.1%. Of early breast carcinoma, the difference of sensitivity was significant between FFDM and CDFI (P<0.05), the difference of accuracy and sensitivity were significant between CDFI and combination of both modalities (P<0.01). Of advanced breast carcinoma, the difference of accuracy and sensitivity were significant between FFDM and combination of both modalities (P<0.05), the difference of accuracy was significant between CDFI and combination of both modalities (P<0.05).3. Of the total214cases of breast tumor, there were59cases who were younger than40years old and155cases who were older than40years older. The accuracy of younger group for FFDM, CDFI and combination of both modalities were83.1%,88.1%,93.2%, the sensitivity were75.9%,89.7%,93.1%, the specificity were90.0%,86.7%,93.3%. The accuracy of older group for FFDM, CDFI and combination of both modalities were86.5%,81.9%,90.3%, the sensitivity were86.8%,80.7%,91.2%, the specificity were85.4%,85.4%,87.8%. There was a significant difference between FFDM and CDFI in the sensitivity of younger or older group (P<0.05). Of older group, the difference of accuracy and sensitivity were significant between CDFI and combination of both modalities (P<0.01).Conclusion:1. For the older patients and early breast carcinoma, the value of FFDM was higher than CDFI.2. For the younger patients, the value of CDFI was higher than FFDM,3. For the breast carcinoma and advanced breast carcinoma, the value of FFDM and CDFI was similar.4. For all groups of cases, the value of combination of both FFDM and CDFI was higher than either modality alone.