Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Triple Test Score for the Evaluation of Invasive Ductal and Lobular Breast Cancer

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Pathology & Oncology Research

Abstract

The aim of our study was to compare the preoperative sum score diagnostics of invasive ductal and lobular cancers using three or four diagnostic methods. The novelty of this study is the examination of this phenomenon based on sum score, no such papers can be found in the literature. Ductal cancers have higher score values indicating easier diagnostics, but the difference in distribution of the scores was significant (p = 0.0086) only in case of the triple-test. The score values give appropriate opportunity to create their order of diagnostic power which was the same by both histologic types and in their subgroups with low sum-score: the strongest was cytology, followed by mammography, ultrasound and physical examination. No significant difference was found between the two histologic group in their mammographic appearances—stellate, circumscribed, assymmetric distortion or microcalcification—(p = 0.0694). In low score subgroup besides the occult forms, structural distortion and indeterminate microcalcifications overweighed the stellate and circumscribed lesions typical for the whole groups. In symptomless cases of both histologic groups only one strongly malignant diagnostic test result warrants the right diagnosis. Summarizing the score distribution of the results in case of four diagnostic tools the higher scores—indicating malignancy—were more frequent in the ductal group compared to the lobular ones. Extra attention has to be paid to rare radiomorphologic appearances and to the most deterministic examination, namely cytology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tot T (2003) The diffuse type of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: morphology and prognosis. Virchows Arch 43:718–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Martinez V, Azzopardi JG (1979) Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: incidence and variants. Histopathology 493:467–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Li CI, Anderson BO (2003) Trends in incidence rates of invasive lobular and ductal breast carcinoma. JAMA 19(289):1421–1424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Adler OB, Engel A (1990) Invasive lobular carcinoma. Mammographic pattern. Rofo 152:460–462

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Ashikari R, Huvos AG, Urban JA (1973) Infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast. Cancer 31:110–116

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Broet P, de la Rochefordiere A, Scholl SM et al (1995) Contralateral breast cancer:annual incidence and risk parameters. J Clin Oncol 13:1578–1583

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Silverstein MJ, Lewinsky BS, Waisman Gierson ED et al (1994) Infiltrating lobular carcinoma. Is it different from infiltrating duct carcinoma. Cancer 73:1673–1677

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Biglia N, Mariani L, Sgro L et al (2007) Increased incidence of lobular breast cancer in women treated with hormone replacement therapy: implications of diagnosis, surgical and medical treatment. Endocr Relat Cancer 14:549–567

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Toikkanen S, Pylkannen L, Joensu H (1997) Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast has better short-term and long-term survival than invasive ductal carcinoma. Br J Cancer 78:1234–1240

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hermansen C, Poulsen H, Jensen J et al (1984) Palpable breast tumours: “triple diagnosis” and operative strategy. Acta Chir Scand 150:625–628

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Azzarelli A, Guzzon A, Pilotti S et al (1983) Accuracy of breast cancer diagnosis by physical and radiologic and cytologic combined examinations. Tumori 69:137–141

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Irwing L, Macaskill P, Houssami N (2002) Evidence relevant to the investigation of breast symptoms:the triple test. Breast 11:215–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Morris AM, Flowers CR, Morris KT et al (2003) Comparing the cost-effectiveness of the triple test score to traditional methods for evaluating palpable breast masses. Med Care 41:962–971

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Morris KT, Pommier RF, Morris A et al (2001) Usefulness of triple test score for palpable breast masses. Arch Surg 136:1008–1012

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Vetto JT, Pommier RF, Schmidt WA et al (1995) Use of “triple test” for palpable breast lesion yields high diagnostic accuracy and cost savings. Am J Surg 169:519–522

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Houssami N, Irwing L, Simpson J et al (2003) Sydney breast imaging accuracy study: comparative sensitivity and specificity of mammography and sonography in young women with symptoms. AJR 180:935–940

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Morris KT, Vetto JT, Petty JK et al (2002) A new score for the evaluation of palpable breast masses in women under age 40. Am J Surg 184:346–347

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Houssami N, Irwing L, Loy C (2002) Accuracy of combines breast imaging in young women. Breast 11:36–40

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Weigel S et al (2005) The EVA trial: evaluation of the efficacy of diagnostic methods (mammography, ultrasound, MRI) in the secondary and tertiary prevention of familiar breast cancer. Preliminary results after the first half of the study period. Rofo 177:818–827

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Egyed Z, Járay B, Péntek Z (2006) Invasive lobular breast cancer: pitfall for the radiologist. Orv Hetil 5:219–226

    Google Scholar 

  21. American College of Radiology (1995) Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS), 2nd edn. American College of Radiology, Reston

    Google Scholar 

  22. Vincze I, Varbanova M (1993) Non-parametric mathematical statistics. Theory, and practices, 1st edn. Akad. Kiadó, Budapest (in Hungarian)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kemény S, Deák A, Lakné Komka K et al (2004) Statistical analysis using Statistica, 1st edn. Műegyetemi Kiadó, Budapest (in Hungarian)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sartre-Garu X, Jouve M, Asselain B et al (1994) Infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast Clinicopathologic analysis of 975 cases with reference to data on conservative therapy and metastatic patterns. Cancer 73:1673–1677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Newstead GM, Baute PB, Toth HK (1992) Invasive lobular and ductal carcinoma: mammographic findings and stage at diagnosis. Radiology 184(3):623–627

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Christopher IL, Anderson BO, Porter P et al (2000) Changing incidence rate of invasive lobular breast carcinoma among older women. Cancer 88:2561–2569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Krecke KN, Gisvold JJ (1993) Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: mammographic findings and extent of disease in 184 patients. AJR 88:957–960

    Google Scholar 

  28. Bazzocchi M, Facecchia I, Zulani C et al (2000) Diagnostic imaging of lobular carcinoma of the breast: mammographic, ultrasonographic and MR findings. Radiol Med 100:436–443

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Foote FW Jr, Stewart FW (1946) A histologic classification of carcinoma of the breast. Surgery 19:74–99

    Google Scholar 

  30. Langmar Z, Orosz Z (1999) Clinico-pathology of lobular breast cancer. Orv Hetil 140(20):1099–1102

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sastre-Garau X, Jouve M (1996) Infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast. Cancer 1:113–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Silverstein MJ, Lewinsky BS (1994) Infiltrating lobular carcinoma. Cancer 73:673–77

    Google Scholar 

  33. Steinberg JL, Trudeau ML, Ryder DE et al (1996) Combined fine-needle aspiration, physical examination and mammography in the diagnosis of palpable breast massses: their relation to outcome for women with primary breast cancer. C J Surg 39:302–311

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Morris A, Pommier RF, Schmidt WA et al (1998) Accurate evaluation of palpable breast masses by the triple test score. Arch Surg 133:390–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mansoor I, Zahrani I (2002) Analysis of inconclusive breast FNA by triple test. J Pak Med Assoc. 52:25–29

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Fenton JJ, Barton MB, Geiger AM et al (2005) Screening clinical breast examination:how often does it miss lethal breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 35:67–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Gill G, Luke C, Roder D (2006) Prognostic importance of palpability as a feature of screen-detected breast cancers. J Med Screen 13:98–101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Knight JA, Libstug AR, Moravan V et al (1998) An assessment of the influence of clinical breast examination reports on the interpretation of mammograms in a breast screening program. Breast Cancer Res Treat 48:65–71

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Feigin KN, Keating DM, Telford PM et al (2006) Clinical breast examination in a comprehensive breast cancer screening program: contribution and cost. Radiology 240:650–655

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Bartella L, Liberman L, Morris EA et al (2006) Nonpalpable mammographically occult invasive breast cancers detected by MRI. AJR 186:865–870

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Mathieu I, Mazy S, Willemart B et al (2005) Inconclusive triple diagnosis in breast cancer imaging: is there a place for scintimammography. J Nucl Med 46:1574–1581

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mamma Breast Health Corporation, Kapás u. 29, Budapest, 1023, Hungary

    Zsofia Egyed & Zoltán Péntek

  2. 2nd Institute of Pathology, Semmelweis University of Budapest, Budapest, Hungary

    Balázs Járay & Janina Kulka

Authors
  1. Zsofia Egyed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Balázs Járay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Janina Kulka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zoltán Péntek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zsofia Egyed.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 6 The low score subgroup of ductal cancers using three or four tests
Full size table
Table 7 The low score subgroup of lobular cancers using three or four tests
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Egyed, Z., Járay, B., Kulka, J. et al. Triple Test Score for the Evaluation of Invasive Ductal and Lobular Breast Cancer. Pathol. Oncol. Res. 15, 159–166 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12253-008-9083-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12253-008-9083-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation