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.
ADH
Atypical ductal hyperplasia
B3 lesion
Underestimation
Journal
Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)
ISSN: 1880-4233
Titre abrégé: Breast Cancer
Pays: Japan
ID NLM: 100888201
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2019
Jul 2019
Historique:
received:
04
07
2018
accepted:
18
12
2018
pubmed:
29
12
2018
medline:
18
12
2019
entrez:
29
12
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Risk assessment and therapeutic options are challenges when counselling patients with an atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) to undergo either open surgery or follow-up only. We retrospectively analyzed a series of ADH lesions and assessed whether the morphological parameters of the biopsy materials indicated whether the patient should undergo surgery. A total of 207 breast biopsies [56 core needle biopsies (CNBs) and 151 vacuum-assisted biopsies (VABs)] histologically diagnosed as ADH were analyzed retrospectively, together with subsequently obtained surgical specimens. All histological slides were re-analyzed with regard to the presence/absence of ADH-associated calcification, other B3 lesions (lesion of uncertain malignant potential), extent of the lesion, and the presence of multifocality. The overall underestimation rate for the whole cohort was 39% (57% for CNB, 33% for VAB). In the univariate analysis, the method of biopsy (CNB vs VAB, p = 0.002) and presence of multifocality in VAB specimens (p = 0.0176) were significant risk factors for the underestimation of the disease (ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive cancer detected on subsequent open biopsy). In the multivariate logistic regression model, the absence of calcification (p = 0.0252) and the presence of multifocality (unifocal vs multifocal ADH, p = 0.0147) in VAB specimens were significant risk factors for underestimation. Multifocal ADH without associated calcification diagnosed by CNB tends to have a higher upgrade rate. Because the upgrade rate was 16.5% even in the group with the lowest risk (VAB-diagnosed unifocal ADH with calcification), we could not identify a subgroup that would not require an open biopsy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Risk assessment and therapeutic options are challenges when counselling patients with an atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) to undergo either open surgery or follow-up only.
METHODS
METHODS
We retrospectively analyzed a series of ADH lesions and assessed whether the morphological parameters of the biopsy materials indicated whether the patient should undergo surgery. A total of 207 breast biopsies [56 core needle biopsies (CNBs) and 151 vacuum-assisted biopsies (VABs)] histologically diagnosed as ADH were analyzed retrospectively, together with subsequently obtained surgical specimens. All histological slides were re-analyzed with regard to the presence/absence of ADH-associated calcification, other B3 lesions (lesion of uncertain malignant potential), extent of the lesion, and the presence of multifocality.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The overall underestimation rate for the whole cohort was 39% (57% for CNB, 33% for VAB). In the univariate analysis, the method of biopsy (CNB vs VAB, p = 0.002) and presence of multifocality in VAB specimens (p = 0.0176) were significant risk factors for the underestimation of the disease (ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive cancer detected on subsequent open biopsy). In the multivariate logistic regression model, the absence of calcification (p = 0.0252) and the presence of multifocality (unifocal vs multifocal ADH, p = 0.0147) in VAB specimens were significant risk factors for underestimation.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Multifocal ADH without associated calcification diagnosed by CNB tends to have a higher upgrade rate. Because the upgrade rate was 16.5% even in the group with the lowest risk (VAB-diagnosed unifocal ADH with calcification), we could not identify a subgroup that would not require an open biopsy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30591993
doi: 10.1007/s12282-018-00943-2
pii: 10.1007/s12282-018-00943-2
pmc: PMC6570781
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
452-458Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Références
Mod Pathol. 2018 Mar;31(3):395-405
pubmed: 29099502
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Feb;198(2):W132-40
pubmed: 22268202
Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2011 Dec;4(12):1947-52
pubmed: 22144468
Radiol Med. 2011 Mar;116(2):276-91
pubmed: 21225358
Ann Surg Oncol. 2011 Mar;18(3):752-61
pubmed: 20972636
J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 2010 Dec;15(4):389-97
pubmed: 21161341
Radiol Bras. 2016 Jan-Feb;49(1):6-11
pubmed: 26929454
Histopathology. 2005 Nov;47(5):445-57
pubmed: 16241992
Am J Med Sci. 2012 Jul;344(1):28-31
pubmed: 22205116
Histopathology. 2015 Jul;67(1):106-20
pubmed: 25529860
Pathology. 2009 Jan;41(1):36-9
pubmed: 19089738
Mod Pathol. 2010 May;23 Suppl 2:S1-7
pubmed: 20436497
Histopathology. 2003 Apr;42(4):331-6
pubmed: 12653944
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Jul;164(2):295-304
pubmed: 28474262
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016 Sep;159(2):203-13
pubmed: 27522516
Radiology. 2010 Jun;255(3):723-30
pubmed: 20173103
Breast. 2011 Jun;20(3):264-70
pubmed: 21208804
Patholog Res Int. 2011;2011:489064
pubmed: 21785684
Am J Surg Pathol. 2008 Apr;32(4):513-23
pubmed: 18223478
Histopathology. 2011 Mar;58(4):626-32
pubmed: 21371081
Int J Surg. 2018 Jan;49:27-31
pubmed: 29146271
N Engl J Med. 2005 Jul 21;353(3):229-37
pubmed: 16034008
Int J Cancer. 2011 Sep 15;129(6):1417-24
pubmed: 21128240
Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2018 Jan;27(1):23-32
pubmed: 29132563
Breast. 2018 Feb;37:13-17
pubmed: 29040892
Hum Pathol. 2011 Jan;42(1):41-50
pubmed: 20970167
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2015 Apr;12(4):227-38
pubmed: 25622978
Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2011 Mar;4(3):435-44
pubmed: 21209395
Ann Surg Oncol. 2012 Apr;19(4):1115-21
pubmed: 21935747
Mod Pathol. 2011 Sep;24(9):1198-206
pubmed: 21602816
Am J Clin Pathol. 2005 Dec;124(6):862-72
pubmed: 16416735