AJR Get Involved! Great Benefits! Join ARRS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Carlson, K. L.
Right arrow Articles by Rochester, A. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Carlson, K. L.
Right arrow Articles by Rochester, A. B.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 172, 313-317, Copyright © 1999 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Relationship between mammographic screening intervals and size and histology of ductal carcinoma in situ

KL Carlson, MA Helvie, MA Roubidoux, CG Kleer, HA Oberman, TE Wilson, EW Pollak and AB Rochester
Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Hospitals, Ann Arbor 48109-0326, USA.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine how the length of time between mammographic screenings is related to the size, grade, and histology of mammographically detected ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 166 consecutive mammograms of women evaluated for DCIS with (n = 24) and without (n = 142) microinvasion. The size of the DCIS was determined by the maximum diameter as measured on the mammogram. After pathologic analysis, DCIS was classified by histologic architecture, nuclear grade, presence of microinvasion, and presence of multifocality. Four screening intervals were defined: annual (6-17 months), biennial (18-29 months), triennial (> or = 30 months), and first time. Patients were grouped according to screening intervals. The average age of all groups was 55 years. RESULTS: The annual group (mean size of DCIS, 1.69 cm) had significantly smaller DCIS than did the biennial (mean size, 2.27 cm), triennial (mean size, 3.49 cm), or first time groups (mean size, 3.29 cm) (p = .003). Comedo histology was more frequently observed in patients screened biennially (73.7%) than in those screened annually (46.8%) (p = .05). High-grade nuclear histology was more commonly seen in the biennial (76.3%) than in the annual (48.1%) screening group (p = .008). We found no significant correlation between screening interval and the incidence of microinvasion and multifocality. CONCLUSION: Small, low-grade noncomedo DCIS was more common in the annual mammographic screening group than in the biennial screening group. A direct relationship was found between DCIS size and length of screening interval: DCIS detected at annual screening was smaller than that found at biennial screening, which in turn was smaller than DCIS revealed at triennial screening. This study provides inferential support for annual screening mammography for DCIS detection and management.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1999 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.