UNASSIGNED: To analyze the clinical and ultrasonic characteristics of breast sclerosing adenosis (SA) and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), and construct a predictive nomogram for SA.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 865 patients were recruited at the Second Hospital of Shandong University from January 2016 to November 2022. All patients underwent routine breast ultrasound examinations before surgery, and the diagnosis was confirmed by histopathological examination following the operation. Ultrasonic features were recorded using the Breast Imaging Data and Reporting System (BI-RADS). Of the 865 patients, 203 (252 nodules) were diagnosed as SA and 662 (731 nodules) as IDC. They were randomly divided into a training set and a validation set at a ratio of 6:4. Lastly, the difference in clinical characteristics and ultrasonic features were comparatively analyzed.
UNASSIGNED: There was a statistically significant difference in multiple clinical and ultrasonic features between SA and IDC (P<0.05). As age and lesion size increased, the probability of SA significantly decreased, with a cut-off value of 36 years old and 10 mm, respectively. In the logistic regression analysis of the training set, age, nodule size, menopausal status, clinical symptoms, palpability of lesions, margins, internal echo, color Doppler flow imaging (CDFI) grading, and resistance index (RI) were statistically significant (P<0.05). These indicators were included in the static and dynamic nomogram model, which showed high predictive performance, calibration and clinical value in both the training and validation sets.
UNASSIGNED: SA should be suspected in asymptomatic young women, especially those younger than 36 years of age, who present with small-size lesions (especially less than 10 mm) with distinct margins, homogeneous internal echo, and lack of blood supply. The nomogram model can provide a more convenient tool for clinicians.

UNASSIGNED: We aimed to develop an ultrasound-based radiomics model to distinguish between sclerosing adenosis (SA) and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) to avoid misdiagnosis and unnecessary biopsies.
UNASSIGNED: From January 2020 to March 2022, 345 cases of SA or IDC that were pathologically confirmed were included in the study. All participants underwent pre-surgical ultrasound (US), from which clinical information and ultrasound images were collected. The patients from the study population were randomly divided into a training cohort (n = 208) and a validation cohort (n = 137). The US images were imported into MaZda software (Version 4.2.6.0) to delineate the region of interest (ROI) and extract features. Intragroup correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to evaluate the consistency of the extracted features. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) logistic regression and cross-validation were performed to obtain the radiomics score of the features. Based on univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, a model was developed. 56 cases from April 2022 to December 2022 were included for independent validation of the model. The diagnostic performance of the model and the radiomics scores were evaluated by performing the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. The calibration curve and decision curve analysis (DCA) were used for calibration and evaluation. Leave-One-Out Cross-Validation (LOOCV) was used for the stability of the model.
UNASSIGNED: Three predictors were selected to develop the model, including radiomics score, palpable mass and BI-RADS. In the training cohort, validation cohort and independent validation cohort, AUC of the model and radiomics score were 0.978 and 0.907, 0.946 and 0.886, 0.951 and 0.779, respectively. The model showed a statistically significant difference compared with the radiomics score (p<0.05). The Kappa value of the model was 0.79 based on LOOCV. The Brier score, calibration curve, and DCA showed the model had a good calibration and clinical usefulness.
UNASSIGNED: The model based on radiomics, ultrasonic features, and clinical manifestations can be used to distinguish SA from IDC, which showed good stability and diagnostic performance. The model can be considered a potential candidate diagnostic tool for breast lesions and can contribute to effective clinical diagnosis.

UNASSIGNED: Sclerosing adenosis (SA) is a benign lesion that could mimic breast carcinoma and be evaluated as malignancy by Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) analysis. We aimed to construct and validate the performance of radiomic model based on dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) compared to BI-RADS analysis to identify SA.
UNASSIGNED: Sixty-seven patients with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) and 58 patients with SA were included in this retrospective study from two institutions. The 125 patients were divided into a training cohort (n= 88) from institution I and a validation cohort from institution II (n=37). Dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences including one pre-contrast and five dynamic post-contrast series were obtained for all cases with different 3T scanners. Single-phase enhancement, multi-phase enhancement, and dynamic radiomic features were extracted from DCE-MRI. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) logistic regression and cross-validation was performed to build the radscore of each single-phase enhancement and the final model combined multi-phase and dynamic radiomic features. The diagnostic performance of radiomics was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and compared to the performance of BI-RADS analysis. The classification performance was tested using external validation.
UNASSIGNED: In the training cohort, the AUCs of BI-RADS analysis were 0.71 (95%CI [0.60, 0.80]), 0.78 (95%CI [0.67, 0.86]), and 0.80 (95%CI [0.70, 0.88]), respectively. In single-phase analysis, the second enhanced phase radiomic signature achieved the highest AUC of 0.88 (95%CI [0.79, 0.94]) in distinguishing SA from IDC. Nine multi-phase radiomic features and two dynamic radiomic features showed the best predictive ability for final model building. The final model improved the AUC to 0.92 (95%CI [0.84, 0.97]), and showed statistically significant differences with BI-RADS analysis (p<0.05 for all). In the validation cohort, the AUC of the final model was 0.90 (95%CI [0.75, 0.97]), which was higher than all BI-RADS analyses and showed statistically significant differences with one of the BI-RADS analysis observers (p = 0.03).
UNASSIGNED: Radiomics based on DCE-MRI could show better diagnostic performance compared to BI-RADS analysis in differentiating SA from IDC, which may contribute to clinical diagnosis and treatment.

Atypical apocrine adenosis (AAA) is a benign lesion of the breast that is identified more frequently today than in the past when it was considered a rare diagnosis and commonly misdiagnosed as other malignant lesions of the breast. AAA is defined as the presence of apocrine cytology in a recognisable lobular unit associated with sclerosing adenosis. We present a case of an incidental finding of AAA and discuss diagnostic challenges and their implications on clinical management.

BACKGROUND: 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.
METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.

UNASSIGNED: Sclerosing adenosis is a form of adenosis characterized by lobulocentric architecture, glandular and stromal proliferation in which the stromal component compresses and distorts the glandular structures. Atypical epithelial proliferations such as atypical lobular hyperplasia, lobular carcinoma in situ, and ductal carcinoma in situ may accompany areas of sclerosing adenosis. We present a case of ductal carcinoma in situ and sclerosing adenosis with metastatic carcinoma on sentinel lymph node.
UNASSIGNED: A 40-year-old woman presented with a palpable mass in her left breast. Radiologic studies showed a lesion suggesting malignancy in the left breast and atypical lymph node in the left axillary region. Left lumpectomy and sentinel lymph node biopsy was performed. Histopathologic examination revealed lobulocentric lesions with glandular proliferation and hyalinizing stroma in between. Foci of high-grade cribriform and solid type ductal carcinoma in situ were observed. Sentinel lymph node biopsy showed micrometastasis in one lymph node section. Based on these findings, the patient was diagnosed with high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ with sclerosing adenosis. However, the presence of micrometastasis in the lymph node suggested occult invasion that we were not able to detect.
UNASSIGNED: Ductal carcinoma in situ with sclerosing adenosis can mimic invasive carcinoma both radiologically and histologically. It should be kept in mind that there may be occult invasive carcinoma in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ whether the lesion is accompanied by sclerosing adenosis or not. Multiple sections and immunohistochemical studies can be of help.

BACKGROUND: Ductal Carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast can develop in areas of sclerosing adenosis. The radiographic finding of sclerosing adenosis is a spiculated mass and can look like invasive ductal carcinoma. We report a patient with DCIS in sclerosing adenosis encapsulated by a hamartoma, with imaging findings quite different from the typical findings of sclerosing adenosis.
METHODS: A 73-year old woman, with no previous mammography, presented with a palpable mass in the left breast. Mammography showed a 36 mm well-defined mass with fat density in the middle outer quadrant of the left breast. Ultrasonography showed a well-defined mass in the same area which was composed of hypoechoic and hyperechoic areas. The histological diagnosis by core needle biopsy was sclerosing adenosis. We considered the patient\'s age and tumor size and performed a partial mastectomy for both diagnosis and treatment. Final pathology showed DCIS in sclerosing adenosis in a hamartoma.
CONCLUSIONS: This patient had DCIS in an area of sclerosing adenosis, encapsulated by a hamartoma. DCIS can develop in areas of sclerosing adenosis, and can appear similar to invasive ductal carcinoma, so we must avoid misdiagnosis or over-treatment. Malignant transformation of a hamartoma is rare, but can occur since it contains epithelial tissue. Definitive biopsy should be performed due to the possibility of a malignancy inside the hamartoma.
CONCLUSIONS: When diagnosing a hamartoma, the presence of atypical findings on imaging studies, should suggest the possibility of malignancy. Although rare, a malignant tumor may be present inside the hamartoma.

OBJECTIVE: Sclerosing adenosis (SA), found in ¼ of benign breast disease (BBD) biopsies, is a histological feature characterized by lobulocentric proliferation of acini and stromal fibrosis and confers a two-fold increase in breast cancer risk compared to women in the general population. We evaluated a NanoString-based gene expression assay to model breast cancer risk using RNA derived from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) biopsies with SA.
METHODS: The study group consisted of 151 women diagnosed with SA between 1967 and 2001 within the Mayo BBD cohort, of which 37 subsequently developed cancer within 10 years (cases) and 114 did not (controls). RNA was isolated from benign breast biopsies, and NanoString-based methods were used to assess expression levels of 61 genes, including 35 identified by previous array-based profiling experiments and 26 from biological insight. Diagonal linear discriminant analysis of these data was used to predict cancer within 10 years. Predictive performance was assessed with receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (ROC-AUC) values estimated from 5-fold cross-validation.
RESULTS: Gene expression prediction models achieved cross-validated ROC-AUC estimates ranging from 0.66 to 0.70. Performing univariate associations within each of the five folds consistently identified genes DLK2, EXOC6, KIT, RGS12, and SORBS2 as significant; a model with only these five genes showed cross-validated ROC-AUC of 0.75, which compared favorably to risk prediction using established clinical models (Gail/BCRAT: 0.57; BBD-BC: 0.67).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that biomarkers of breast cancer risk can be detected in benign breast tissue years prior to cancer development in women with SA. These markers can be assessed using assay methods optimized for RNA derived from FFPE biopsy tissues which are commonly available.

The present study was conducted to evaluate the radiological findings, particularly the ultrasonographic (US) characteristics of sclerosing adenosis (SA), and their correlation with histopathological results. A retrospective review identified 191 patients with a total of 200 lesions histopathologically confirmed as SA following breast surgery between July 2009 and December 2012. Of the 191 patients, 145 (151 lesions) with SA as the major component were included for US and mammographic (MG) analysis. All 145 patients analyzed were female, with a mean age ± standard deviation of 46.8±7.8 years (range, 25-71 years). All 145 patients underwent US examination and the imaging findings included heterogeneously echogenic areas in 9.3% (14/151), masses in 51.7% (78/151), masses with calcifications in 13.9% (21/151), focal acoustic shadowing in 4.0% (6/151) and were negative in 21.2% (32/151) patients. Among the 119 lesions with visible abnormalities, 87.4% (104/119) were hypoechoic, 58.0% (69/119) were irregular in shape, 52.1% (62/119) had an ill-defined margin, calcifications were found in 17.6% (21/119) and 7.6% (9/119) were hypervascular, while none of the characteristics mentioned above were significantly correlated with histopathology. A total of 136 patients underwent MG at the Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, and the imaging findings included microcalcifications in 31.6% (43/136), masses in 23.5% (32/136), asymmetric focal density in 14.7% (20/136), focal architectural distortion in 22.8% (31/136), and were negative in 7.4% (10/136). The mass lesions were fewer on MG compared with US (23.5 vs. 65.6%, respectively). The area under the curve of US distinguishing between benign and malignant lesions was significantly larger compared with that of MG (0.547 vs. 0.497, respectively; P=0.036). In the 60 lesions that were overestimated by Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System US category, one or more characteristics of malignancy were found on US imaging. The most common finding of SA was masses with or without calcifications on US and microcalcifications on MG. The accuracy of US was limited, but higher compared with that of MG; however, SA mimicking the characteristics of malignancy may contribute to misdiagnosis with US.

In the last few years, diagnostics of high-risk breast lesions (atypical ductal hyperplasia [ADH], flat epithelial atypia [FEA], lobular neoplasia: atypical lobular hyperplasia [ALH], lobular carcinoma in situ [LCIS], radial scar [RS], usual ductal hyperplasia [UDH], adenosis, sclerosing adenosis [SA], papillary breast lesions, mucocele-like lesion [MLL]) have increased with the growing number of breast percutaneous biopsies. The management of these lesions is highly conditioned by the enlarged risk of breast cancer combined with either an increased probability of finding cancer after surgery, either a possible malignant transformation (in situ or invasive cancer), or an increased probability of developing cancer on the long range. An overview of the literature reports grade C recommendations concerning the management and follow-up of these lesions: in case of ADH, FEA, ALH, LCIS, RS, MLL with atypia, diagnosed on percutaneous biopsies: surgical excision is recommended; in case of a diagnostic based on vacuum-assisted core biopsy with complete disappearance of radiological signal for FEA or RS without atypia: surgical abstention is a valid alternative approved by multidisciplinary meeting. In case of ALH (incidental finding) associated with benign lesion responsible of radiological signal: abstention may be proposed; in case of UDH, adenosis, MLL without atypia, diagnosed on percutaneous biopsies: the concordance of radiology and histopathology findings must be ensured. No data is available to recommend surgery; in case of non-in sano resection for ADH, FEA, ALH, LCIS (except pleomorphic type), RS, MLL: surgery does not seem to be necessary; in case of previous ADH, ALH, LCIS: a specific follow-up is recommended in accordance with HAS\'s recommendations. In case of FEA and RS or MLL combined with atypia, little data are yet available to differ the management from others lesions with atypia; in case of UDH, usual sclerosing adenosis, RS without atypia, fibro cystic disease: no specific follow-up is recommended in agreement with HAS\'s recommendations.