Vol 25, No 1 (2022)
Research paper
Published online: 2022-01-14

open access

Page views 5735
Article views/downloads 496
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Assessing the correlation between FDG PET findings of IDC breast carcinoma and histopathology of coexisting ductal carcinoma in-situ

Ismet Sarikaya1, Ali Sarikaya2, Ahmed N. Albatineh3, Ebru Tastekin4, Yavuz Atakan Sezer5
Pubmed: 35137931
Nucl. Med. Rev 2022;25(1):6-11.


Background: Ductal carcinoma in-situ (DCIS) often coexists with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) of the breast. DCIS is considered as a non-obligate precursor of IDC when both coexist. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography ([18F]FDG PET/CT) imaging is commonly used in the staging and follow-up assessment of breast cancer. In this study, we aimed to assess if there is any correlation between primary tumor PET and histopathology findings and histopathological features of the coexisting DCIS. Material and methods: FDG PET/CT images and histopathology results of the patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer (IDC) with coexisting DCIS were analyzed in this retrospective study. The grade and size of the primary tumor and histopathological features of the coexisting DCIS (nuclear grade and architectural pattern) were obtained from the postoperative histopathology results. Maximum standardized uptake values (SUV: SUVmax and SULmax) of the primary tumor normalized by weight and lean body mass were measured. Statistical analysis was performed to assess the correlation between various parameters of IDC and DCIS. Results: This study included sixty-two (62) patients with IDC-DCIS. Primary tumor grade was significantly correlated and associated with the nuclear grade of the coexisting DCIS (polychoric correlation r = 0.736, and Fisher exact test, PV < 0.001, respectively). Primary tumor SUV was not correlated with the nuclear grade and architectural pattern of the coexisting DCIS (polyserial correlation r = 0.172, PV = 0.155, and Point Bi-Serial correlation r = –0.009, PV = 0.955, respectively). Median primary tumor size was marginally significantly different among DCIS nuclear grades but it was not significantly different in comedo and non-comedo cases (Kruskal-Wallis test PV = 0.053, and Mann-Whitney U test PV = 0.890, respectively). Conclusions: Primary tumor grade is correlated with the nuclear grade of the coexisting DCIS. SUV of primary tumor does not seem to be correlated with the histopathological features of coexisting DCIS (nuclear grade and architectural pattern) but this may be further studied in a larger number of patients.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file


  1. Barnes NLP, Ooi JL, Yarnold JR, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. BMJ. 2012; 344: e797.
  2. Jo BH, Chun YK. Heterogeneity of invasive ductal carcinoma: proposal for a hypothetical classification. J Korean Med Sci. 2006; 21(3): 460–468.
  3. Logullo AF, Godoy AB, Mourão-Neto M, et al. Presence of ductal carcinoma in situ confers an improved prognosis for patients with T1N0M0 invasive breast carcinoma. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2002; 35(8): 913–919.
  4. Pinder SE, Ellis IO. The diagnosis and management of pre-invasive breast disease: ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH)--current definitions and classification. Breast Cancer Res. 2003; 5(5): 254–257.
  5. Cowell CF, Weigelt B, Sakr RA, et al. Progression from ductal carcinoma in situ to invasive breast cancer: revisited. Mol Oncol. 2013; 7(5): 859–869.
  6. Dieterich M, Hartwig F, Stubert J, et al. Accompanying DCIS in breast cancer patients with invasive ductal carcinoma is predictive of improved local recurrence-free survival. Breast. 2014; 23(4): 346–351.
  7. Wong H, Lau S, Yau T, et al. Presence of an in situ component is associated with reduced biological aggressiveness of size-matched invasive breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2010; 102(9): 1391–1396.
  8. Groheux D, Cochet A, Humbert O, et al. ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT for Staging and Restaging of Breast Cancer. J Nucl Med. 2016; 57 Suppl 1: 17S–26S.
  9. Edge SB, Compton CC. The American Joint Committee on Cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010; 17(6): 1471–1474.
  10. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines). National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Version 4.2017-February 7, 2018.
  11. Groheux D, Giacchetti S, Moretti JL, et al. Correlation of high 18F-FDG uptake to clinical, pathological and biological prognostic factors in breast cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011; 38(3): 426–435.
  12. Avril N, Menzel M, Dose J, et al. Glucose metabolism of breast cancer assessed by 18F-FDG PET: histologic and immunohistochemical tissue analysis. J Nucl Med. 2001; 42(1): 9–16.
  13. Gil-Rendo A, Martínez-Regueira F, Zornoza G, et al. Association between [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose uptake and prognostic parameters in breast cancer. Br J Surg. 2009; 96(2): 166–170.
  14. Yoon HJ, Kang KW, Chun InK, et al. Correlation of breast cancer subtypes, based on estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2, with functional imaging parameters from ⁶⁸Ga-RGD PET/CT and ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014; 41(8): 1534–1543.
  15. Gonçalves H, Guerra MR, Duarte Cintra JR, et al. Survival Study of Triple-Negative and Non-Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in a Brazilian Cohort. Clin Med Insights Oncol. 2018; 12: 1179554918790563.
  16. Sarikaya I, Sarikaya A, Albatineh AN, et al. Is there a difference in FDG PET findings of invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast with and without coexisting DCIS? Asia Ocean J Nucl Med Biol. 2020; 8: 27–35.
  17. Betsill WL, Rosen PP, Lieberman PH, et al. Intraductal carcinoma. Long-term follow-up after treatment by biopsy alone. JAMA. 1978; 239(18): 1863–1867.
  18. Steinman S, Wang J, Bourne P, et al. Expression of cytokeratin markers, ER-alpha, PR, HER-2/neu, and EGFR in pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and DCIS with co-existing invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) of the breast. Ann Clin Lab Sci. 2007; 37(2): 127–134.
  19. Alexe G, Dalgin GS, Ganesan S, et al. Analysis of breast cancer progression using principal component analysis and clustering. J Biosci. 2007; 32(5): 1027–1039.
  20. Aubele M, Mattis A, Zitzelsberger H, et al. Extensive ductal carcinoma In situ with small foci of invasive ductal carcinoma: evidence of genetic resemblance by CGH. Int J Cancer. 2000; 85(1): 82–86, doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0215(20000101)85:1<82::aid-ijc15>3.0.co;2-s.
  21. Iakovlev VV, Arneson NCR, Wong V, et al. Genomic differences between pure ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast and that associated with invasive disease: a calibrated aCGH study. Clin Cancer Res. 2008; 14(14): 4446–4454.
  22. Castro NP, Osório CA, Torres C, et al. Evidence that molecular changes in cells occur before morphological alterations during the progression of breast ductal carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res. 2008; 10(5): R87.
  23. Schuetz CS, Bonin M, Clare SE, et al. Progression-specific genes identified by expression profiling of matched ductal carcinomas in situ and invasive breast tumors, combining laser capture microdissection and oligonucleotide microarray analysis. Cancer Res. 2006; 66(10): 5278–5286.
  24. Wong H, Lau S, Leung R, et al. Coexisting ductal carcinoma in situ independently predicts lower tumor aggressiveness in node-positive luminal breast cancer. Med Oncol. 2012; 29(3): 1536–1542.
  25. Buerger H, Otterbach F, Simon R, et al. Comparative genomic hybridization of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast-evidence of multiple genetic pathways. J Pathol. 1999; 187(4): 396–402, doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9896(199903)187:4<396::AID-PATH286>3.0.CO;2-L.
  26. Burkhardt L, Grob TJ, Hermann I, et al. Gene amplification in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010; 123(3): 757–765.
  27. Siziopikou KP. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: current concepts and future directions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013; 137(4): 462–466.
  28. Ballard LJ, Ballard GV. High-grade ductal carcinoma in situ: An overview for the radiologist. J Am Osteopath Coll Rad. 2013; 2: 18–25.
  29. Fitzgibbons PL, Henson DE, Hutter RV. Benign breast changes and the risk for subsequent breast cancer: an update of the 1985 consensus statement. Cancer Committee of the College of American Pathologists. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1998; 122(12): 1053–1055.
  30. Consensus Conference on the classification of ductal carcinoma in situ. The Consensus Conference Committee. Cancer. 1997; 80(9): 1798–1802, doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19971101)80:9<1798::aid-cncr15>3.0.co;2-0.
  31. Guidi AJ, Schnitt SJ, Fischer L, et al. Microvessel density and distribution in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1994; 86(8): 614–619.
  32. Engels K, Fox SB, Whitehouse RM, et al. Distinct angiogenic patterns are associated with high-grade in situ ductal carcinomas of the breast. J Pathol. 1997; 181(2): 207–212, doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9896(199702)181:2<207::AID-PATH758>3.0.CO;2-4.
  33. Lagios M, Westdahl P, Margolin F, et al. Duct carcinomain situ. Relationship of extent of noninvasive disease to the frequency of occult invasion, multicentricity, lymph node metastases, and short-term treatment failures. Cancer. 1982; 50(7): 1309–1314, doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19821001)50:7<1309::aid-cncr2820500716>3.0.co;2-#.
  34. Ketcham A, Moffat F. Vexed surgeons, perplexed patients, and breast cancers which may not be cancer. Cancer. 1990; 65(3): 387–393, doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19900201)65:3<387::aid-cncr2820650302>3.0.co;2-y.
  35. Chagpar AB, McMasters KM, Sahoo S, et al. Does ductal carcinoma in situ accompanying invasive carcinoma affect prognosis? Surgery. 2009; 146(4): 561–7; discussion 567.
  36. Mylonas I, Makovitzky J, Jeschke U, et al. Expression of Her2/neu, steroid receptors (ER and PR), Ki67 and p53 in invasive mammary ductal carcinoma associated with ductal carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) Versus invasive breast cancer alone. Anticancer Res. 2005; 25(3A): 1719–1723.