Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi. 2025 Aug 23;47(8):726-733. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112152-20231007-00168.
ABSTRACT
Objective: To investigate the differences in the clinicopathological and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) imaging features between ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and ductal carcinoma in situ with microinfiltration (DCIS-MI) of the breast, and to clarify the risk factors for the development of DCIS-MI. Methods: Forty-four patients diagnosed with DCIS and 21 patients diagnosed with DCIS-MI by postoperative pathology at Guangdong Maternal and Child Health Hospital from November 2017 to November 2022 were included, and the clinicopathological and preoperative breast MRI data of these patients were retrospectively collected. The patients’ MRI images were categorized and diagnosed with reference to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) criteria. The χ² test or Fisher exact probability method was used to compare the differences in the clinicopathological and MRI imaging characteristics between the two groups of patients, and generalized linear model analysis was used to clarify the influencing factors of DCIS-MI. Results: The differences in the histologic grading, estrogen receptor (ER) expression, progesterone receptor (PR) expression, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2) expression, Ki-67, and molecular typing between patients in the DCIS and DCIS-MI groups were statistically significant (all P＜0.05). The results of generalized linear model analysis showed that Ki-67 expression and specific molecular typing (Luminal B and triple-negative types) were significantly associated with the risk of developing DCIS-MI (P＜0.05). Breast fibroglandular tissue density, lesion type, background parenchymal enhancement, type of time-intensity curves (TICs), distribution of non-mass enhancement, non-mass enhancement internal enhancement characteristics, mass morphology, mass boundary, mass enhancement mode, and other MRI imaging features were not statistically significant (all P＞0.05).The MRI diagnostic accuracy of the DCIS group and the DCIS-MI group was 77.3% (34/44) and 95.2% (20/21), respectively, and the difference in the MRI BI-RADS classification of the patients in the two groups was not statistically significant (P=0.227). Conclusions: There was no significant difference in the breast MRI imaging characteristics between patients in the DCIS and DCIS-MI groups. Patients in the DCIS-MI group were more likely to present with high histologic grades, negative ER, negative PR, positive HER-2, high Ki-67 expression, HER-2 overexpression, and triple-negative phenotypes. The association between Ki-67 expression and specific molecular typing (Luminal B and triple-negative phenotypes) and the risk of developing DCIS-MI risk were correlated.
PMID:40813116 | DOI:10.3760/cma.j.cn112152-20231007-00168
