Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Impact of Non-Calcified Specimen Pathology on the Underestimation of Malignancy for the Incomplete Retrieval of Suspicious Calcifications Diagnosed as Flat Epithelial Atypia or Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia by Stereotactic Vacuum-Assisted Breast Biopsy

  • Chi-Chang Yu (Department of Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University Medical College) ;
  • Yun-Chung Cheung (Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University Medical College) ;
  • hir-Hwa Ueng (Department of Pathology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University Medical College) ;
  • Shin-Cheh Chen (Department of Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University Medical College)
  • Received : 2019.10.19
  • Accepted : 2020.04.14
  • Published : 2020.11.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: Stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VABB) is considered a reliable alternative to surgical biopsy for suspicious calcifications. In most cases, the management of flat epithelial atypia (FEA) and atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) after VABB with residual calcifications requires surgical excision. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of pathology of non-calcified specimens on the underestimation of malignancy. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 1147 consecutive cases of stereotactic VABB of suspicious calcifications without mass from January 2010 to December 2016 and identified 46 (4.0%) FEA and 52 (4.5%) ADH cases that were surgically excised for the retrieval of residual calcifications. Mammographic features and pathology of the calcified and non-calcified specimens were reviewed. Results: Seventeen specimens (17.3%) were upgraded to malignancy. Mammographic features associated with the underestimation of malignancy were calcification extent (> 34.5 mm: odds ratio = 6.059, p = 0.026). According to the pathology of calcified versus non-calcified specimens, four risk groups were identified: Group A (ADH vs. high-risk lesions), Group B (ADH vs. non-high-risk lesions), Group C (FEA vs. high-risk lesions), and Group D (FEA vs. non-high-risk lesions). The lowest underestimation rate was observed in Group D (Group A vs. Group B vs. Group C vs. Group D: 35.0% vs. 20.0% vs. 15.0% vs. 3.6%, p = 0.041, respectively). Conclusion: Considering that the calcification extent and pathology of non-calcified specimens may be beneficial in determining the likelihood of malignancy underestimation, excision after FEA or ADH diagnosis by VABB is required, except for the diagnoses of FEA coexisting without atypia lesions in non-calcified specimens.

Keywords

References

  1. Parker SH, Jobe WE, Dennis MA, Stavros AT, Johnson KK, Yakes WF, et al. US-guided automated large-core breast biopsy. Radiology 1993;187:507-511
  2. Liberman L, Feng TL, Dershaw DD, Morris EA, Abramson AF. US-guided core breast biopsy: use and cost-effectiveness. Radiology 1998;208:717-723
  3. Kunju LP, Kleer CG. Significance of flat epithelial atypia on mammotome core needle biopsy: should it be excised? Hum Pathol 2007;38:35-41
  4. Chivukula M, Bhargava R, Tseng G, Dabbs DJ. Clinicopathologic implications of ''flat epithelial atypia'' in core needle biopsy specimens of the breast. Am J Clin Pathol 2009;131:802-808
  5. Piubello Q, Parisi A, Eccher A, Barbazeni G, Franchini Z, Iannucci A. Flat epithelial atypia on core needle biopsy: which is the right management? Am J Surg Pathol 2009;33:1078-1084
  6. Senetta R, Campanino PP, Mariscotti G, Garberoglio S, Daniele L, Pennecchi F, et al. Columnar cell lesions associated with breast calcifications on vacuum-assisted core biopsies: clinical, radiographic, and histological correlations. Mod Pathol 2009;22:762-769
  7. Ingegnoli A, d'Aloia C, Frattaruolo A, Pallavera L, Martella E, Crisi G, et al. Flat epithelial atypia and atypical ductal hyperplasia: carcinoma underestimation rate. Breast J 2010;16:55-59
  8. Villa A, Chiesa F, Massa T, Friedman D, Canavese G, Baccini P, et al. Flat epithelial atypia: comparison between 9-gauge and 11-gauge devices. Clin Breast Cancer 2013;13:450-454
  9. Becker AK, Gordon PB, Harrison DA, Hassell PR, Hayes MM, van Niekerk D, et al. Flat ductal intraepithelial neoplasia 1A diagnosed at stereotactic core needle biopsy: is excisional biopsy indicated? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;200:682-688
  10. Dialani V, Venkataraman S, Frieling G, Schnitt SJ, Mehta TS. Does isolated flat epithelial atypia on vacuum-assisted breast core biopsy require surgical excision? Breast J 2014;20:606-614
  11. Liberman L, Smolkin JH, Dershaw DD, Morris EA, Abramson AF, Rosen PP. Calcification retrieval at stereotactic, 11-gauge, directional vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Radiology 1998;208:251-260
  12. Penco S, Rizzo S, Bozzini AC, Latronico A, Menna S, Cassano E, et al. Stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy is not a therapeutic procedure even when all mammographically found calcifications are removed: analysis of 4086 procedures. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;195:1255-1260
  13. Eby PR, Ochsner JE, DeMartini WB, Allison KH, Peacock S, Lehman CD. Frequency and upgrade rates of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: 9-versus 11-gauge. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;192:229-234
  14. Sneige N, Lim SC, Whitman GJ, Krishnamurthy S, Sahin AA, Smith TL, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosis by directional vacuum-assisted stereotactic biopsy of breast microcalcifications. Considerations for surgical excision. Am J Clin Pathol 2003;119:248-253
  15. Villa A, Tagliafico A, Chiesa F, Chiaramondia M, Friedman D, Calabrese M. Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy performed on suspicious clustered microcalcifications: could patients without residual microcalcifications be managed conservatively? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;197:1012-1018
  16. Margolin FR, Kaufman L, Jacobs RP, Denny SR, Schrumpf JD. Stereotactic core breast biopsy of malignant calcifications: diagnostic yield of cores with and cores without calcifications on specimen radiographs. Radiology 2004;233:251-254
  17. Cheung YC, Juan YH, Ueng SH, Lo YF, Huang PC, Lin YC, et al. Assessment of breast specimens with or without calcifications in diagnosing malignant and atypia for mammographic breast microcalcifications without mass: a STARD-compliant diagnostic accuracy article. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015;94:e1832
  18. Gumus, H, Mills P, Fish D, Gumus, M, Devalia H, Jones SE, et al. Breast microcalcification: diagnostic value of calcified and non-calcified cores on specimen radiographs. Breast J 2013;19:156-161
  19. Esen G, Tutar B, Uras C, Calay Z, Ince u, Tutar O. Vacuum-assisted stereotactic breast biopsy in the diagnosis and management of suspicious microcalcifications. Diagn Interv Radiol 2016;22:326-333
  20. Tavassoli FA, Hoefler H, Rosai J, Holland R, Ellis IO, Schnitt SJ, et al. Intraductal proliferative lesions. In: Tavassoli FA, Devilee P, eds. Pathology and genetics: tumours of the breast and female genital organs. Lyon: IARC Press, 2003: 63-73
  21. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system, 5th edn. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2013
  22. Pena A, Shah SS, Fazzio RT, Hoskin TL, Brahmbhatt RD, Hieken TJ, et al. Multivariate model to identify women at low risk of cancer upgrade after a core needle biopsy diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2017;164:295-304
  23. Bedei L, Falcini F, Sanna PA, Casadei Giunchi D, Innocenti MP, Vignutelli P, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia of the breast: the controversial management of a borderline lesion: experience of 47 cases diagnosed at vacuum-assisted biopsy. Breast 2006;15:196-202
  24. Forgeard C, Benchaib M, Guerin N, Thiesse P, Mignotte H, Faure C, et al. Is surgical biopsy mandatory in case of atypical ductal hyperplasia on 11-gauge core needle biopsy? A retrospective study of 300 patients. Am J Surg 2008;196:339-345
  25. Wagoner MJ, Laronga C, Acs G. Extent and histologic pattern of atypical ductal hyperplasia present on core needle biopsy specimens of the breast can predict ductal carcinoma in situ in subsequent excision. Am J Clin Pathol 2009;131:112-121
  26. Schiaffino S, Calabrese M, Melani EF, Trimboli RM, Cozzi A, Carbonaro LA, et al. Upgrade rate of percutaneously diagnosed pure atypical ductal hyperplasia: systematic review and meta-analysis of 6458 lesions. Radiology 2020;294:76-86