Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention (아시아태평양암예방학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Differences Between Breast Cancer Patients Younger and Older than 40 Years: Mammographic Findings

  • Zhao, Yu-Mei (Department of Breast Imaging, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Key Laboratory of Breast Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University, Ministry of Education) ;
  • Wang, Jian-Tao (X-Ray Department, Tangshan Gongren Hospital) ;
  • Liu, Jing (Department of Breast Imaging, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Key Laboratory of Breast Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University, Ministry of Education) ;
  • Wang, Ju (Department of Breast Imaging, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Key Laboratory of Breast Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University, Ministry of Education) ;
  • Wang, Hong-Li (Department of Breast Imaging, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Key Laboratory of Breast Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University, Ministry of Education) ;
  • Liu, Pei-Fang (Department of Breast Imaging, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Key Laboratory of Breast Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University, Ministry of Education)
  • Published : 2014.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: To compare the mammogarphic appearance between breast cancer patients aged <40 and ${\geq}40$ years. Methods: Needle localization and biopsy of suspicious mammographic lesions identified 1,959 breast carcinomas in a single institution from Jun 2012 to Apr 2013. According to the age, we divided patients into two groups: <40 and ${\geq}40$ years old, and analyzed mammographic appearance separately. Results: Young patients had 44.2% foci with calcification, but old patients only had 39.4% (P<0.001). In younger group, the ratios of cases according to mass density were 41.8% or higher, 58.2% equivalent and lower. In older group, the ratios were 55.5 % and 44.5%, respectively. There were statistical differences between high density and others (P<0.05). The ratios of cases according to mass margin were 13.9% circumscribed and microlobulated, 86.1% indistinct and spiculated in the younger group, as compared to 6.5% and 93.5%, respectively, in the older group (P<0.05). Conclusions: Mammographic findings differ between young and old patients with breast cancer, for example regarding mass density, mass margin and microcalcification ratios.

Keywords

References

  1. Abdulkareem ST (2014). Breast magnetic resonance imaging indications in current practice. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 2, 569-75. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.2.569
  2. Bauer KR, Brown M, Cress RD, et al (2007). Descriptive analysis of estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, progesterone receptor (PR)-negative, and HER2-negative invasive breast cancer, the so-called triple-negative phenotype: a population-based study from the California cancer Registry. Cancer, 9, 1721-8.
  3. Boisserie-Lacroix M, Macgrogan G, Debled M, et al (2013). Triple-negative breast cancers: associations between imaging and pathological findings for triple-negative tumors compared with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative breast cancers. Oncologist, 7, 802-11.
  4. Brand IR, Sapherson DA, Brown TS (1993). Breast imaging in women under 35 with symptomatic breast disease. Br J Radiol, 785, 394-7.
  5. Cherel P, Becette V, Hagay C (2005). Stellate images: anatomic and radiologic correlations. Eur J Radiol, 1, 37-54.
  6. Ciatto S, Rosselli del Turco M, Catarzi S, et al (1994). The contribution of ultrasonography to the differential diagnosis of breast cancer. Neoplasma, 6, 341-5.
  7. Evans WP, 3rd, Starr AL, Bennos ES (1997). Comparison of the relative incidence of impalpable invasive breast carcinoma and ductal carcinoma in situ in cancers detected in patients older and younger than 50 years of age. Radiology, 2, 489-91.
  8. Ferranti C, Coopmans de Yoldi G, Biganzoli E, et al (2000). Relationships between age, mammographic features and pathological tumour characteristics in non-palpable breast cancer. Br J Radiol, 871, 698-705.
  9. Healey EA, Osteen RT, Schnitt SJ, et al (1989). Can the clinical and mammographic findings at presentation predict the presence of an extensive intraductal component in early stage breast cancer? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 6, 1217-21.
  10. Hermann G, Janus C, Schwartz IS, et al (1988). Occult malignant breast lesions in 114 patients: relationship to age and the presence of microcalcifications. Radiology , 2, 321-4.
  11. Papatestas AE, Hermann D, Hermann G, et al (1990). Surgery for nonpalpable breast lesions. Arch Surg, 3, 399-402.
  12. Pisano ED, Fajardo LL, Tsimikas J, et al (1998). Rate of insufficient samples for fine-needle aspiration for nonpalpable breast lesions in a multicenter clinical trial: The Radiologic Diagnostic Oncology Group 5 Study. The RDOG5 investigators. Cancer , 4, 679-88.
  13. Schmidt-Ullrich RK, Wazer DE, DiPetrillo T, et al (1993). Breast conservation therapy for early stage breast carcinoma with outstanding 10-year locoregional control rates: a case for aggressive therapy to the tumor bearing quadrant. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 3, 545-52.
  14. Shaw de Paredes E, Marsteller LP, Eden BV (1990). Breast cancers in women 35 years of age and younger: mammographic findings. Radiology, 1, 117-9.
  15. Tamaki K, Ishida T, Miyashita M, et al (2012). Retrospective analysis of mammographic findings for Japanese women: a potential predictor for breast malignancies. Cancer Sci, 3, 472-6.
  16. Taneja S, Evans AJ, Rakha EA, et al (2008). The mammographic correlations of a new immunohistochemical classification of invasive breast cancer. Clin Radiol, 11, 1228-35.
  17. Thurfjell MG, Lindgren A, Thurfjell E (2002). Nonpalpable breast cancer: mammographic appearance as predictor of histologic type. Radiology, 1, 165-70.
  18. Tichy JR, Lim E, Anders CK (2013). Breast cancer in adolescents and young adults: a review with a focus on biology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw, 9, 1060-9.
  19. Wang FL, Chen F, Yin H, et al (2013). Effects of age, breast density and volume on breast cancer diagnosis: a retrospective comparison of sensitivity of mammography and ultrasonography in China's rural areas. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 4, 2277-82. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.4.2277
  20. Zadelis S, Houssami N (2003). Mammographic features of breast cancer in young symptomatic women. Australas Radiol, 4, 404-8.

Cited by

  1. Distinct Postsurgical Management in Young and Elderly Breast Cancer Patients Results in Equal Survival Rates vol.15, pp.18, 2014, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.18.7843