↓ Skip to main content

The sonographic findings of micropapillary pattern in pure mucinous carcinoma of the breast

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgical Oncology, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The sonographic findings of micropapillary pattern in pure mucinous carcinoma of the breast
Published in
World Journal of Surgical Oncology, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12957-018-1449-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heqing Zhang, Li Qiu, Yulan Peng

Abstract

The aim of this study was to describe the sonographic features of pure mucinous carcinoma with micropapillary pattern (MUMPC) and compare them with conventional pure mucinous breast carcinoma without micropapillary architecture (cPMBC) and mixed mucinous breast carcinoma (MMBC). Eighty-eight patients (17 MUMPCs, 43 cPMBCs, and 28 MMBCs) were included in the study. Sonographic features according to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon for ultrasound (US) were recorded and analyzed for each patient. The age, sonographic lesion size, menstrual status, mass location, palpation, tenderness, and axillary lymph node metastasis (LNM) were also analyzed. Most of the MUMPCs showed an irregular shape (82.4%, 14/17), a parallel orientation (94.1%, 16/17), a non-circumscribed margin (88.2%, 15/17), and distal acoustic enhancement (88.2%, 15/17). Furthermore, MUMPC had mixed cystic and solid components (35.3%, 6/17) and hypoechoic (29.4%, 5/17) and isoechoic (35.3%, 6/17) structures, with calcification (29.4%, 5/17) and blood flow (41.2%, 7/17) within the tumor. The differences in sonographic features were not found between the MUMPC and cPMBC and between the MUMPC and MMBC. Moreover, there was no significant difference between the three groups based on age, menstrual status, mass location, palpation, and tenderness (p > 0.05). Similar axillary LNMs were observed between MUMPC and cPMBC (p > 0.05), but both MUMPC and cPMBC were statistically different from MMBC (p < 0.05), so as the lesion size. At this particular stage, it is challenging to distinguish MUMPC from cPMBC and MMBC on ultrasound according to the BI-RADS-US lexicon.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 17%
Other 2 17%
Librarian 1 8%
Student > Master 1 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 33%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 8%
Engineering 1 8%
Unknown 6 50%