Ultrasonographic Findings of Mammographic Architectural Distortion

Ma, Jeong Hyun; Kang, Bong Joo; Cha, Eun Suk; Hwangbo, Seol; Kim, Hyeon Sook; Park, Changsuk; Kim, Sung Hun; Choi, Jae Jeong; Chung, Yong An

Abstract

PURPOSE: To review the sonographic findings of various diseases showing architectural distortion depicted under mammography.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We collected and reviewed architectural distortions observed under mammography at our health institution between 1 March 2004, and 28 February 2007. We collected 23 cases of sonographically-detected mammographic architectural distortions that confirmed lesions after surgical resection. The sonographic findings of mammographic architectural distortion were analyzed by use of the BI-RADS lexicon for shape, margin, lesion boundary, echo pattern, posterior acoustic feature and orientation.
RESULTS
There were variable diseases that showed architectural distortion depicted under mammography. Fibrocystic disease was the most common presentation (n = 6), followed by adenosis (n = 2), stromal fibrosis (n = 2), radial scar (n = 3), usual ductal hyperplasia (n = 1), atypical ductal hyperplasia (n = 1) and mild fibrosis with microcalcification (n = 1). Malignant lesions such as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (n = 2), lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) (n = 2), invasive ductal carcinoma (n = 2) and invasive lobular carcinoma (n = 1) were observed. As ovserved by sonography, shape was divided as irregular (n = 22) and round (n = 1). Margin was divided as circumscribed (n = 1), indistinct (n = 7), angular (n = 1), microlobulated (n = 1) and sipculated (n = 13). Lesion boundary was divided as abrupt interface (n = 11) and echogenic halo (n = 12). Echo pattern was divided as hypoechoic (n = 20), anechoic (n = 1), hyperechoic (n = 1) and isoechoic (n = 1). Posterior acoustic feature was divided as posterior acoustic feature (n = 7), posterior acoustic shadow (n = 15) and complex posterior acoustic feature (n = 1). Orientation was divided as parallel (n = 12) and not parallel (n = 11). There were no differential sonographic findings between benign and malignant lesions.
CONCLUSION
This study presented various sonographic findings of mammographic architectural distortion and that it is difficult to differentiate between benign and malignant lesions depicted under sonography. Pathological confirmation is needed for mammographic architectural distortion.