Lobular neoplasia at percutaneous breast biopsy: variables associated with carcinoma at surgical excision.
ABSTRACT The purpose of our study was to better define the rate and variables associated with cancer underestimation when lobular neoplasia is found at minimally invasive breast biopsy.
The records of 32,420 patients who underwent imaging-guided needle biopsy of the breast for mammographic or sonographic abnormalities from 1988 to 2000 were retrospectively reviewed. The 278 cases in which lobular neoplasia was the highest-risk lesion at biopsy were included. Of the 278 cases, 164 proceeded to surgical excision, allowing calculation of rates of underestimation from minimally invasive biopsy.
Of the 32,420 minimally invasive breast biopsies, lobular neoplasia was found in 278 (0.9%). One hundred sixty-four of the 278 (59%) continued to surgical excision, where cancer was pathologically confirmed in 38 (23%). No difference was seen in the underestimation rates for lesions diagnosed as lobular carcinoma in situ (25%, 17 of 67 lesions) versus atypical lobular hyperplasia (22%, 21 of 97 lesions). Statistically significant underestimation of carcinoma was found with biopsy of masses (with or without associated microcalcifications) rather than calcifications only, a higher BI-RADS category (p < 0.0001), use of a core biopsy device rather than a vacuum device (p < 0.01), and obtaining fewer specimens (p < 0.0001).
Significant sampling error occurs regardless of the type of core biopsy device, number of specimens obtained, histologic-radiographic concordance, mammographic appearance, and complete excision of the lesion as determined by imaging. For this reason, all patients with lobular neoplasia at core or vacuum-assisted biopsy should undergo surgical excision until further differentiating criteria can be determined.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To audit the outcomes of patients with non-pleomorphic lobular in situ neoplasia (LISN) of the breast and clarify the role of vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB), surgical biopsy and conservative management for this condition.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) 07/2014; · 2.09 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to determine the underestimation rate of high-risk lesions diagnosed at MRI-guided breast biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS. This was a retrospective review of 446 MRI-guided breast biopsies from January 2006 through December 2010. Data were collected on examination indication, lesion size and type, and pathology results. Biopsies were performed with a 9-gauge vacuum-assisted device. Biopsy results of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), papillary lesion, radial scar, lobular neoplasia, and atypia were identified and compared with final excisional pathology results. Underestimation rates were calculated and data were compared by patient and lesion characteristics using chi-square analysis. RESULTS. Of the 446 MRI-guided biopsies, 96 (21.5%) were high-risk lesions. Forty-two of 96 lesions (44%) were masses, and 54 (56%) showed nonmass enhancement. Twenty of 96 lesions (20.8%) were ADH, nine (9.4%) were lobular neoplasia, 27 (28.1%) were papillary lesions, 20 (20.8%) were radial scar, and 20 (20.8%) were other atypias. Sixty-nine of 96 lesions (71.9%) had surgical excisional pathology results available. Sixteen of 69 (23.2%) lesions were upgraded to malignancy; 11 of the 16 (68.8%) were upgraded to ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and five (31.2%) were upgraded to invasive carcinoma. The underestimation rate was 31.6% (6/19) for ADH, 5.9% (1/17) for papillary lesions, 23.1% (3/13) for radial scar, 28.6% (2/7) for lobular neoplasia, and 30.8% (4/13) for other atypias (p = 0.43). There was no statistically significant difference in underestimation rate by lesion type, size, or history of newly diagnosed breast cancer. CONCLUSION. MRI-guided breast biopsy yielded high-risk lesions in 21.5% of cases, and the underestimation rate was 23.2%. No patient or lesion characteristics correlated with underestimation rate.American Journal of Roentgenology 09/2014; 203(3):682-6. · 2.74 Impact Factor
- Breast Care 07/2014; 9(3):189-200. · 0.91 Impact Factor