{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Ultrasound characteristics of sclerosing adenosis mimicking breast carcinoma.
{Author}: Liu W;Li W;Li Z;Shi L;Zhao P;Guo Z;Tian J;Wang Z;
{Journal}: Breast Cancer Res Treat
{Volume}: 181
{Issue}: 1
{Year}: May 2020
{Factor}: 4.624
{DOI}: 10.1007/s10549-020-05609-2
{Abstract}: <B>BACKGROUND: </B>Sclerosing adenosis (SA) is a benign lesion with complicated pathological components and could mimic breast carcinoma in both clinical palpation and medical imaging findings. The present study was conducted to assess the value of ultrasound (US) characteristics in diagnosing SA and their differentiation from breast carcinoma.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 305 women (347 lesions) with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) and 54 women with single SA lesion, who had breast excision between April 2016 and July 2018. US BI-RADS atlas and elastography were applied and their associated characteristics were compared between SA and IDC.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>The mean age of SA was younger than that of IDC (43.6 ± 7.4 vs 53.2 ± 10.3, P < 0.001). Compared to IDC, SA had more frequency of parallel orientation (94.44% vs 71.76%, P < 0.001) and circumscribed margin (48.15% vs 4.90%, P < 0.001), less frequency of irregular shape (64.81% vs 95.97%, P < 0.001), hypoechoic echotexture (88.89% vs 98.27%, P = 0.002), calcification (12.96% vs 55.04%, P < 0.001), and posterior acoustic changes (3.70% vs 53.89%, P < 0.001) or associated features (architectural distortion, 3.70% vs 59.65%, P < 0.001; duct changes, 18.52% vs 63.40%, P < 0.001). Vascularity absence was more common in SA compared to IDC (35.19% vs 6.63%, P < 0.001). And the elasticity score was lower in SA (2.38 ± 0.60 vs 3.91 ± 0.81, P < 0.001). After adjusting for age, we found spiculated margin, posterior shadowing, calcification, architectural distortion, and vascularity could independently identify the differences between these two entities. After involving elasticity score, the calcification and vascularity could still be independent indicators for differential diagnosis.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>Understanding SA imaging features will enable radiologists to communicate results to the referring physician consistently, which could benefit a reliable assessment and specific management recommendations. A systematic evaluation of the US BI-RADS atlas together with breast elastography may be a powerful tool to identify SA and differentiate it from breast cancer.