Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia: Risk Factors for Predicting Pathologic Upgrade on Excisional Biopsy

침생검 조직검사에서 진단된 비정형 관상피증식증: 수술적 절제 생검에서 악성으로 진단될 가능성을 예측할 수 있는 위험인자들

  • Ko Woon Park (Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Boo-Kyung Han (Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Sun Jung Rhee (Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Soo Youn Cho (Department of Pathology and Translational Genomics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Eun Young Ko (Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Eun Sook Ko (Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Ji Soo Choi (Department of Radiology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
  • 박고운 (성균관대학교 의과대학 삼성서울병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 한부경 (성균관대학교 의과대학 삼성서울병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 이선정 (성균관대학교 의과대학 삼성서울병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 조수연 (성균관대학교 의과대학 삼성서울병원 병리과) ;
  • 고은영 (성균관대학교 의과대학 삼성서울병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 고은숙 (성균관대학교 의과대학 삼성서울병원 영상의학과) ;
  • 최지수 (성균관대학교 의과대학 삼성서울병원 영상의학과)
  • Received : 2021.06.12
  • Accepted : 2021.08.16
  • Published : 2022.05.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose To determine the incidence of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) in needle biopsy and the upgrade rate to carcinoma, and to evaluate difference in findings between the upgrade and non-upgrade groups. Materials and Methods Among 9660 needle biopsies performed over 48 months, we reviewed the radiologic and histopathologic findings of ADH and compared the differences in imaging findings (mammography and breast US) and biopsy methods between the upgrade and non-upgrade groups. Results The incidence of ADH was 1.7% (169/9660). Of 112 resected cases and 30 cases followed-up for over 2 years, 35 were upgraded to carcinoma (24.6%, 35/142). The upgrade rates were significantly different according to biopsy methods: US-guided core needle biopsy (USCNB) (40.7%, 22/54) vs. stereotactic-vacuum-assisted biopsy (S-VAB) (16.0%, 12/75) vs. USguided VAB (US-VAB) (7.7%, 1/13) (p = 0.002). Multivariable analysis showed that only US-CNB (odds ratio = 5.19, 95% confidence interval: 2.16-13.95, p < 0.001) was an independent predictor for pathologic upgrade. There was no upgrade when a sonographic mass was biopsied by US-VAB (n = 7) Conclusion The incidence of ADH was relatively low (1.7%) and the upgrade rate was 24.6%. Surgical excision should be considered because of the considerable upgrade rate, except in the case of US-VAB.

목적 조직생검으로 진단된 비정형 관상피증식증이 수술 후 악성으로 진단되는 과소평가율과 이를 예측할 수 있는 영상 소견이나 진단 방법에 따른 위험인자를 조사하고자 한다. 대상과 방법 2년 이상의 기간 동안 시행된 9660예의 침생검을 후향적으로 분석하여 영상 소견과 조직검사 방법에 따라 과소평가 군과 비 과소평가 군의 차이점을 비교하였다. 결과 9660예의 침생검 중 169 (1.7%)예가 비정형 관상피증식증으로 진단되었다. 절제 생검을 한 112예와 2년 이상 추적검사를 한 30예를 합친 142예 중 35예에서 과소평가되었다 (24.6%, 35/142). 과소평가율의 차이는 조직생검 방법에 따라 의미 있었다; 초음파 유도 핵생검(40.7%, 22/54), 입체정위 진공 보조흡입생검(16.0%, 12/75), 초음파 유도 진공 보조흡입생검 (7.7%, 1/13) (p = 0.002). 다변량 분석에서는 초음파 유도 핵생검(교차비 5.19, 95% 신뢰구간 2.16-13.95, p < 0.001)이 독립적인 위험 인자였다. 종괴로 보이는 병변이 초음파 유도 진공 보조흡입생검으로 진단된 경우는 과소평가가 보고되지 않았다( n = 7). 결론 비정형 관상피증식증이 1.7%로 진단되었고 과소평가율은 24.6%였다. 종괴로 보이는 병변이 초음파 유도 진공 보조흡입생검으로 제거된 경우를 제외하고는 상당한 과소평가율을 보이고 있으므로 수술적 절제를 고려해야 한다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ellis IO, Humphreys S, Michell M, Pinder SE, Wells CA, Zakhour HD. Best practice no 179. Guidelines for breast needle core biopsy handling and reporting in breast screening assessment. J Clin Pathol 2004;57:897-902 https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.2003.010983
  2. Allison KH, Eby PR, Kohr J, DeMartini WB, Lehman CD. Atypical ductal hyperplasia on vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: suspicion for ductal carcinoma in situ can stratify patients at high risk for upgrade. Hum Pathol 2011;42:41-50 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2010.06.011
  3. Acheson MB, Patton RG, Howisey RL, Lane RF, Morgan A. Histologic correlation of image-guided core biopsy with excisional biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions. Arch Surg 1997;132:815-818; discussion 819-821 https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.1997.01430320017002
  4. Liberman L, Cohen MA, Dershaw DD, Abramson AF, Hann LE, Rosen PP. Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at stereotaxic core biopsy of breast lesions: an indication for surgical biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;164:1111-1113 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.164.5.7717215
  5. Lin PH, Clyde JC, Bates DM, Garcia JM, Matsumoto GH, Girvin GW. Accuracy of stereotactic core-needle breast biopsy in atypical ductal hyperplasia. Am J Surg 1998;175:380-382 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9610(98)00047-6
  6. Brem RF. Management of breast atypical ductal hyperplasia: now and the future. Radiology 2020;294:87-88 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019192192
  7. Forester ND, Lowes S, Mitchell E, Twiddy M. High risk (B3) breast lesions: what is the incidence of malignancy for individual lesion subtypes? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol 2019;45:519-527 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2018.12.008
  8. Sharma N, Wilkinson LS, Pinder SE. The B3 conundrum-the radiologists' perspective. Br J Radiol 2017;90:20160595
  9. 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 https://doi.org/10.1309/AJCPGHEJ2R8UYFGP
  10. Degnim AC, King TA. Surgical management of high-risk breast lesions. Surg Clin North Am 2013;93:329-340 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2012.12.005
  11. Ely KA, Carter BA, Jensen RA, Simpson JF, Page DL. Core biopsy of the breast with atypical ductal hyperplasia: a probabilistic approach to reporting. Am J Surg Pathol 2001;25:1017-1021 https://doi.org/10.1097/00000478-200108000-00005
  12. 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2007.07.038
  13. Kim J, Han W, Go EY, Moon HG, Ahn SK, Shin HC, et al. Validation of a scoring system for predicting malignancy in patients diagnosed with atypical ductal hyperplasia using an ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy. J Breast Cancer 2012;15:407-411 https://doi.org/10.4048/jbc.2012.15.4.407
  14. Ko E, Han W, Lee JW, Cho J, Kim EK, Jung SY, et al. Scoring system for predicting malignancy in patients diagnosed with atypical ductal hyperplasia at ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2008;112:189-195 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-007-9824-0
  15. 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 https://doi.org/10.1309/0GYV4F2LLJAV4GFN
  16. 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 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019190748
  17. Schiaffino S, Massone E, Gristina L, Fregatti P, Rescinito G, Villa A, et al. Vacuum assisted breast biopsy (VAB) excision of subcentimeter microcalcifications as an alternative to open biopsy for atypical ductal hyperplasia. Br J Radiol 2018;91:20180003
  18. Rageth CJ, O'Flynn EA, Comstock C, Kurtz C, Kubik R, Madjar H, et al. First International Consensus Conference on lesions of uncertain malignant potential in the breast (B3 lesions). Breast Cancer Res Treat 2016;159:203-213 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-3935-4
  19. Nguyen CV, Albarracin CT, Whitman GJ, Lopez A, Sneige N. Atypical ductal hyperplasia in directional vacuum- assisted biopsy of breast microcalcifications: considerations for surgical excision. Ann Surg Oncol 2011;18:752-761 https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-1127-8
  20. 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 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4253-1
  21. Yeh IT, Dimitrov D, Otto P, Miller AR, Kahlenberg MS, Cruz A. Pathologic review of atypical hyperplasia identified by image-guided breast needle core biopsy. Correlation with excision specimen. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2003;127:49-54 https://doi.org/10.5858/2003-127-49-PROAHI
  22. Degnim AC, Visscher DW, Berman HK, Frost MH, Sellers TA, Vierkant RA, et al. Stratification of breast cancer risk in women with atypia: a Mayo cohort study. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:2671-2677 https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.09.0217
  23. Renshaw AA, Cartagena N, Schenkman RH, Derhagopian RP, Gould EW. Atypical ductal hyperplasia in breast core needle biopsies. Correlation of size of the lesion, complete removal of the lesion, and the incidence of carcinoma in follow-up biopsies. Am J Clin Pathol 2001;116:92-96 https://doi.org/10.1309/61HM-89TD-0M3L-JAHH
  24. Krishnamurthy S, Bevers T, Kuerer H, Yang WT. Multidisciplinary considerations in the management of high-risk breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;198:W132-W140 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.7799
  25. Sickles EA, D'Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, Appleton CM, Berg WA, Burnside ES. ACR BI-RADSⓇ atlas: mammography. In American College of Radiology, ed. ACR BI-RADSⓇ atlas: breast imaging reporting and data system, 5th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology 2013:5-175
  26. Cao C, Louie BE, Melfi F, Veronesi G, Razzak R, Romano G, et al. Impact of pulmonary function on pulmonary complications after robotic-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2019;57:338-342 https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezz205
  27. Deshaies I, Provencher L, Jacob S, Cote G, Robert J, Desbiens C, et al. Factors associated with upgrading to malignancy at surgery of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed on core biopsy. Breast 2011;20:50-55 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2010.06.004
  28. Jung I, Kim MJ, Moon HJ, Yoon JH, Kim EK. Ultrasonography-guided 14-gauge core biopsy of the breast: results of 7 years of experience. Ultrasonography 2018;37:55-62 https://doi.org/10.14366/usg.17028
  29. Rageth CJ, Rubenov R, Bronz C, Dietrich D, Tausch C, Rodewald AK, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia and the risk of underestimation: tissue sampling method, multifocality, and associated calcification significantly influence the diagnostic upgrade rate based on subsequent surgical specimens. Breast Cancer 2019;26:452-458 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-018-00943-2
  30. Chae BJ, Lee A, Song BJ, Jung SS. Predictive factors for breast cancer in patients diagnosed atypical ductal hyperplasia at core needle biopsy. World J Surg Oncol 2009;7:77
  31. Mesurolle B, Perez JC, Azzumea F, Lemercier E, Xie X, Aldis A, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at sonographically guided core needle biopsy: frequency, final surgical outcome, and factors associated with underestimation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;202:1389-1394 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.10864
  32. Rageth CJ, O'Flynn EAM, Pinker K, Kubik-Huch RA, Mundinger A, Decker T, et al. Second International Consensus Conference on lesions of uncertain malignant potential in the breast (B3 lesions). Breast Cancer Res Treat 2019;174:279-296 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-05071-1