Correlating the Ground Truth of Mammographic Histology with the Success or Failure of Imaging

Abstract

Detailed and systematic mammographic-pathologic correlation is essential for evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of mammography as an imaging method as well as for establishing the role of additional methods or alternatives. Two- and three-dimensional large section histopathology represents an ideal tool for this correlation. This kind of interdisciplinary approach (“mammographic histology”) is slowly but irrevocably becoming accepted as the new golden standard in diagnosing breast abnormalities. In this review, upon summarizing the theoretical background and our practical experience in routine diagnostic use of these advantageous techniques, we report on the accuracy of the preoperative radiological diagnosis. As compared to the final diagnostic outcome, stellate lesions on the mammogram and microcalcifications of casting type indicate malignancy with very high accuracy while predicting malignancy in cases of powdery and crushed stone type microcalcifications is problematic. The extent of the disease is regularly underestimated on the mammogram by the radiologist. Combining different radiological signs, and comparing repeated static images taken in regular intervals in screening or postoperative follow-up, the mammographer may type and grade the lesions properly in a considerable number of cases. Regular mammographic-pathologic correlation may increase the specificity and sensitivity of mammographic diagnosis. This correlation is essential for establishing the proper pre- and postoperative histological diagnosis, too.