Browse > Article

Imaging Features of Mucinous Breast Carcinoma  

Han, Hye-Jung (Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea)
Kim, Sung-Hun (Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea)
Cha, Eun-Suk (Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea)
Kim, Hyun-Sook (Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea)
Kang, Bong-Joo (Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea)
Choi, Jae-Jung (Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea)
Lee, Jee-Hye (Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea)
Lee, Ah-Won (Department of Pathology, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea)
Publication Information
Investigative Magnetic Resonance Imaging / v.14, no.1, 2010 , pp. 21-30 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose : To examine the imaging findings of mucinous breast carcinoma and to evaluate the difference in these findings based on the histopathologic grade. Materials and Methods : We retrospectively analyzed the imaging features according to BI-RADS in 29 patients with surgically proven mucinous carcinoma. The histopathologic grade was classified as well-differentiated, moderately-differentiated and poorly-differentiated. Based on these criteria, the differences in imaging findings were statistically analyzed. Results : Mammography was available in 20 cases, which contained 17 mass lesions (85%) and 3 cases of normal findings. On ultrasonography (27 cases), mucinous carcinoma was observed as a mass with an oval shape (59.3%), a microlobulated margin (55.6%) or an inhomogeneous isoechogenicity (74.1%). On MRI (21 cases), mucinous carcinoma was commonly observed to have a lobular shape (76%), smooth margin (86%) or heterogeneous contrast-enhancement (61.9%). On the kinetic curve, there was a delayed wash-out pattern (52.3%). There were no significant differences in the imaging findings for each histopathologic grade except that a welldifferentiated tumor had an abrupt interface. Conclusion : A well-differentiated mucinous carcinoma tended to have an abrupt interface on ultrasonography, as compared with the moderately-differentiated one. Mucinous carcinoma showed a heterogeneous enhancement and a delayed washout kinetic curve pattern on dynamic MRI.
Keywords
Adenocarcinoma; mucinous; Breast neoplasms; Mammography; Ultrasonography; Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI);
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Memis A, Ozdemir N, Parildar M, Ustunn EE, Erhan Y. Mucinous breast cancer: mammographic and US features with histologic correlation. Eur J Radiol 2000;35:39-43   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Clayton F. Pure mucinous carcinoma of the breast: morphologic features and prognostic correlates. Hum Pathol 1986;17:34-38   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Wedegartner U, Bick U, Wortler K, Rummery E, Bongartz G. Differentiation between benign and malignant findings on MR-mammography: usefulness of morphological criteria. Eur Radiol 2001;11:1645-1650   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Parsons CA. Diagnosis of breast disease: imaging, clinical features and pathology. Baltimore: University Park Press 1983;142-162
5 Pina Insausti LJ, Soga Garcia E. Mucinous breast carcinoma showing as a cluster of suspicious microcalcifications on mammography. Eur Radiol 1998;8:1666-1668   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Lam WW, Chu WC, Tse GM, Ma TK. Sonographic appearance of mucinous carcinoma of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;182:1069-1074   DOI
7 Chopra S, Evans AJ, Pinder SE, et al. Pure mucinous breast cancer: mammographic and ultrasound findings. Clin Radiol 1996;51:421-424   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Matsuda M, Yoshimoto M, Iwase T, et al. Mammographic and clinicopathological features of mucinous carcinoma of the breast. Breast Cancer 2000;7:65-70   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Stavros AT. Malignant solid breast nodules: specific types. In: Stavros AT, editor. Breast ultrasound. Philadelphia: Lipincott Williams & Wilkins 2003;645-648
10 Kamitani Kumiko, Ono Minoru, Toyoshima Satoshi, et al. Isoechoic axillary lymph node metastases of mucinous carcinoma of the breast: a case report. Breast cancer 2006; 13:382-385   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Kushwara AC, Whitman GJ, Williamson JD. Mucinous carcinoma of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;173:290   DOI
12 Cardenosa G, Doudna C, Eklund GW. Mucinous (colloid) breast cancer: clinical and mammographic findings in 10 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994;162:1077-1079   DOI
13 Goodman DN, Boutross-Tadross O, Jong RA. Mammographic features of puremucinous carcinoma of the breast with pathological correlation. Can Assoc Radiol J 1995;46:296-301
14 Svane G, Potchen EJ, Sierra A, Azavedo E. Screening mammography. St. Louis, MO: Mosby 1993;296-299, 308-311
15 Kopans DB. Breast imaging. Philadelphia: Lippincott 1989; 298
16 Conant EF, Dillon RL, Palazzo J, Ehrlich SM, Feig SA. Imaging findings in mucin-containing carcinomas of the breast: correlation with pathologic features. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994;163:821-824   DOI
17 Dhillon R, Depree P, Metcalf C, Wylie E. Screen-detected mucinous carcinoma: potential for delayed diagnosis. Clin Radiol 2006;61:423-430   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Takashi Okafuji, Hidetake Yabuuchi, Shuji Sakai. MR imaging features of pure mucinous carcinoma of the breast. Eur J Radiol 2006;60:405-413   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Wilson TE, Helvie MA, Oberman HA, Joynt LK. Pure and mixed mucinous carcinoma of the breast: pathologic basis for differences in mammographic appearance. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;165:285-289   DOI
20 Kawashima M, Tamaki Y, Nonaka T, et al. MR imaging of mucinous carcinoma of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179:179-183   DOI
21 Yuen S, Uematsu T, Kasami M, et al. Breast carcinomas with strong high-signal intensity on T2-weighted MR images: pathological characteristics and differential diagnosis. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007;25:502-510   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Shuichi Monzawa, Masaki Yokokawa, et al. Mucinous Carcinoma of the Breast: MRI Features of Pure and Mixed Forms with Histopathologic Correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;192:125-131