Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

À¯¹æ °ü»óÇdz»¾ÏÀÇ ÃÊÀ½ÆÄ ¼Ò°ß: À¯¹æÃÔ¿µ¼ú ¼Ò°ß°úÀÇ ºñ±³ Sonographic Findings of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ of the Breast: Comparison with Mammographic Findings

´ëÇѹæ»ç¼±ÀÇÇÐȸÁö 1999³â 41±Ç 6È£ p.1225 ~ 1230
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
±èÀÀ¿±/Eung Yeop Kim ÇѺΰæ/ÃÖ¿¬Çö/³²¼®Áø/¾çÁ¤Çö/°í¿µÇý/Boo Kyung Han/Yeon Hyeon Choe/Seok Jin Nam/Young Hyeh Ko/Jung Hyun Yang

Abstract

¸ñÀû : À¯¹æ ÃÊÀ½ÆÄ °Ë»ç¿¡¼­ À¯¹æ °ü»óÇdz»¾ÏÀÇ ¹ß°ßÀ²°ú ¼Ò°ßÀ» ¾Ë¾Æº¸°í À¯¹æÃÔ¿µ¼ú ¼Ò
°ß°ú ºñ±³ÇÏ°íÀÚ ÇÏ¿´´Ù.
´ë»ó ¹× ¹æ¹ý : º´¸®ÇÐÀûÀ¸·Î È®ÁøµÈ À¯¹æÀÇ °ü»óÇdz»¾Ï ȯÀÚ 134¸í Áß ¼ö¼ú Àü ÃÊÀ½Æĸ¦
½ÃÇàÇÑ 47¸íÀÇ 48À¯¹æÀ» ´ë»óÀ¸·Î ÇÏ¿´´Ù. 27¸íÀº Áõ»óÀÌ ¾ø¾ú°í 20¸íÀº Áõ»óÀÌ ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. Àú
ÀÚµéÀº ÃÊÀ½ÆÄ¿¡¼­ º´º¯ÀÇ ¹ß°ß À¯¹«¿Í ¼Ò°ßÀ» ÈÄÇâÀûÀ¸·Î ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç, Á¾±«·Î ³ªÅ¸³ª´Â
°æ¿ì Á¾±«ÀÇ ¸ð¾ç, °æ°è, ¿¡ÄÚ¿Í Á¾±« ³»ºÎÀÇ ¿¡Äڹ߻ý¼±µé(intervening echogenic lines)À̳ª
Á¾±« ³»ºÎÀÇ ¹Ì¼¼¼®È¸È­ÀÇ µ¿¹Ý ¿©ºÎ µîÀ» ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´´Ù.
°á°ú : ÃÊÀ½ÆÄ¿¡¼­ º´º¯ÀÇ ¹ß°ßÀÌ °¡´ÉÇÏ¿´´ø °æ¿ì´Â 39¿¹(81%)¿´°í ÀÌ Áß 5mmÀÌ»çÀÇ Á¾
±«°¡ 24¿¹(62%), ¹Ì¼¼¼®È¸È­¸¸ º¸ÀÎ °æ¿ì°¡ 3¿¹(6%), ±× ¿ÜÀÇ ¼Ò°ß¸¸ º¸ÀÎ °æ¿ì°¡ 9¿¹(23%;
À¯°üÁÖÀ§ ºñÈÄ 6¿¹, ¹Ì¼¼°áÀý 3¿¹) ÀÖ¾ú°í, 3¿¹´Â ¹Ì¼¼¼®È¸È­¿Í ±× ¿ÜÀÇ ¼Ò°ß(À¯°üÁÖÀ§ ºñÈÄ
2¿¹, ¹Ì¼¼°áÀý 1¿¹)ÀÌ µ¿¹ÝµÇ¾ú´Ù. Á¾±«·Î º¸ÀÎ 24¿¹ Áß 13¿¹(54%)´Â ºÒ±ÔÄ¢ÇÑ ÇüŸ¦ º¸¿´
°í 11¿¹(46%)´Â ³­¿øÇü ¶Ç´Â ¼Ò¿±»óÀ¸·Î º¸¿´´Ù. °æ°è´Â 17¿¹(71%)¿¡¼­ ºÒºÐ¸íÇÏ°Ô º¸¿´°í,
¿¡ÄÚ´Â 18¿¹(75%)¿¡¼­ ¾àÇÑ Àú¿¡ÄÚ¸¦ º¸¿´´Ù. Á¾±« ³»ºÎ¿¡ ¿¡Äڹ߻ý¼± µéÀÌ º¸ÀÎ °æ¿ì´Â 8
¿¹¿´°í ¹Ì¼¼¼®È¸È­°¡ º¸ÀÎ °æ¿ì´Â 7¿¹¿´´Ù.
°á·Ð : À¯¹æÀÇ °ü»óÇdz»¾ÏÀº ÃÊÀ½ÆÄ¿¡¼­´Â ºÒ±ÔÄ¢ÇÑ ¸ð¾ç°ú ºÒºÐ¸íÇÑ °æ°è¸¦ °®´Â ¾àÇÑ Àú
¿¡ÄÚÀÇ Á¾±«°¡ °¡Àå ÈçÇÑ ¼Ò°ßÀ¸·Î 27%(13/48)¿¡¼­ ¹Ì¼¼¼®È¸È­°¡ º¸¿´À¸¸ç, À¯°üÁÖÀ§ ºñÈÄ
³ª ¹Ì¼¼°áÀý·Î¸¸ º¸À̱⵵ ÇÑ´Ù. ±×·¯¹Ç·Î ¿¹ÈÄ°¡ ÁÁÀº °ü»óÇdz»¾ÏÀ» Á¶±â Áø´ÜÇϱâ À§Çؼ­
´Â À¯¹æÃÔ¿µ¼ú°ú ÇÔ²² ÃÊÀ½ÆÄ °Ë»çµµ °°ÀÌ ½ÃÇàÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ µµ¿òÀÌ µÉ °ÍÀÌ´Ù.
#ÃÊ·Ï#
Purpose : To evaluate the sonographic findings and detection rate of ductal carcinoma in
situ (DCIS) and to compare the results with mammographic findings.
Materials and Methods : Of 134 patients with pathologically proven DCIS, 47 patient (48
breasts) who underwent sonography before surgery were included. Twenty-seven
patients were asymptomatic, while 20 experienced symptoms. Whether a lesion was
present, and the nature of the related sonographic finding were analyzed retrospectively.
When a mass identified by means of sonography, it was evaluated in terms of its
shape, margin, echogenicity, associated microcalcifications, and intervening echogenic
lines.
Result : Sonography detected 39/48 cases of DCIS (81%). In 24 cases, detection was
based only on the presence of the mass, while in nine cases this depended on additional
findings alone [periductal thickening (n=6); micronodules (n=3)]. In there cases the
presence of microcalcifications alone was sufficient for detection and in the other three
cases, detection was based on the presence of microcalcifications as well as on
additional findings [periductal thickening (n=2); micronodules (n=1)]. Thirteen lesions
(54%) were irregular in shape, while 11 (46%) were oval or lobulated. The margings of
17 lesions (71%) were ill-defined, and in 18(75%), echogenicity was slightly hypoechoic.
Conclusion : Sonography showed that for masses identified as DCIS, the most common
findings were an ill-defined margin, irregular, and mild hypoechogenicity.
Microcalcifications were identified in 13 of 48 breasts (27%), while in some cases
intervening echogenic lines and microcalcifications were the only finding. For early
detection of DCIS, mammography together with sonography may be helpful.

Å°¿öµå

Breast; neoplasms; Breast; US;

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KoreaMed
KAMS