A Prospective Evaluation of Tru-Cut Biopsy and Fine-needle Aspiration Cytology in Male Breast Cancer Detection.
Tru-Cut needle biopsy
breast lesions
fine needle aspiration cytology
male cancer
ultrasound
Journal
In vivo (Athens, Greece)
ISSN: 1791-7549
Titre abrégé: In Vivo
Pays: Greece
ID NLM: 8806809
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
received:
22
06
2020
revised:
27
07
2020
accepted:
28
07
2020
entrez:
4
11
2020
pubmed:
5
11
2020
medline:
22
6
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Male breast-cancer (MBC) is often diagnosed late. Our purpose was to evaluate fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) versus Tru-Cut biopsy (TCNB) in MBC diagnosis. Men with suspicious breast lesions were prospectively enrolled; 54 met the inclusion criteria and underwent FNAC and TCNB. FNAC, TCNB and gold-standard results were compared. Unsatisfactory results were 11.1% after FNAC and none after TCNB (p=0.027). After gold-standard evaluation, the diagnosis of FNAC and TCNB was confirmed, respectively, in 63.0% and 98.1% and changed in 37.0% and 1.9% (p<0.001). The malignancy rate after FNAC, TCNB and surgery were, respectively, 25.9%, 33.3% and 35.1% (FNAC vs. TCNB p=0.5276, FNAC vs. surgery p=0.404; TCNB vs. surgery p=1). Among invasive carcinomas, 93.8% were identified by FNAC vs. 87.5% by TCNB (p=1); all ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) were detected after TCNB and none after FNAC (p=0.1). FNAC leads to a significantly higher number of inadequate samplings and seems to be subject to increased DCIS misdiagnoses. TCNB correlated better to the final histological report.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Male breast-cancer (MBC) is often diagnosed late. Our purpose was to evaluate fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) versus Tru-Cut biopsy (TCNB) in MBC diagnosis.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
METHODS
Men with suspicious breast lesions were prospectively enrolled; 54 met the inclusion criteria and underwent FNAC and TCNB. FNAC, TCNB and gold-standard results were compared.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Unsatisfactory results were 11.1% after FNAC and none after TCNB (p=0.027). After gold-standard evaluation, the diagnosis of FNAC and TCNB was confirmed, respectively, in 63.0% and 98.1% and changed in 37.0% and 1.9% (p<0.001). The malignancy rate after FNAC, TCNB and surgery were, respectively, 25.9%, 33.3% and 35.1% (FNAC vs. TCNB p=0.5276, FNAC vs. surgery p=0.404; TCNB vs. surgery p=1). Among invasive carcinomas, 93.8% were identified by FNAC vs. 87.5% by TCNB (p=1); all ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) were detected after TCNB and none after FNAC (p=0.1).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
FNAC leads to a significantly higher number of inadequate samplings and seems to be subject to increased DCIS misdiagnoses. TCNB correlated better to the final histological report.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33144451
pii: 34/6/3431
doi: 10.21873/invivo.12182
pmc: PMC7811617
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3431-3439Informations de copyright
Copyright© 2020, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.
Références
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2017 Mar;21(6):1341-1345
pubmed: 28387892
In Vivo. 2019 Nov-Dec;33(6):1879-1884
pubmed: 31662515
Anticancer Res. 2020 Mar;40(3):1719-1729
pubmed: 32132080
Acta Cytol. 1995 Sep-Oct;39(5):877-81
pubmed: 7571963
Radiographics. 2013 May;33(3):763-79
pubmed: 23674773
Int J Breast Cancer. 2014;2014:469803
pubmed: 24672730
Anticancer Res. 2018 Apr;38(4):2109-2117
pubmed: 29599329
J Am Coll Radiol. 2018 Nov;15(11S):S313-S320
pubmed: 30392600
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jan 10;28(2):232-9
pubmed: 19996029
Maedica (Bucur). 2018 Sep;13(3):196-201
pubmed: 30568739
Acta Cytol. 2001 Nov-Dec;45(6):948-52
pubmed: 11726123
Cancer. 2004 Jul 1;101(1):51-7
pubmed: 15221988
Int J Mol Sci. 2017 Jul 07;18(7):
pubmed: 28686211
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2010 May;10(5):704-8
pubmed: 20154347
Breast J. 2010 Sep-Oct;16(5):510-8
pubmed: 20560973
Cytojournal. 2016 Aug 31;13:18
pubmed: 27651820
Breast J. 2006 Sep-Oct;12(5):418-23
pubmed: 16958958
Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2014 Nov;10(11):684-98
pubmed: 25112235
J Clin Diagn Res. 2014 Oct;8(10):FC13-5
pubmed: 25478347
Ann Oncol. 2008 Apr;19(4):614-22
pubmed: 18024988
Breast J. 2015 May-Jun;21(3):217-8
pubmed: 25900306
Radiographics. 2006 Jul-Aug;26(4):993-1006
pubmed: 16844928
Cancer. 2010 Jun 15;116(12):2913-21
pubmed: 20336782
Int J Surg Pathol. 2017 May;25(3):200-205
pubmed: 27831530
Radiol Med. 2012 Jun;117(4):539-57
pubmed: 22020428
J Ultrasound Med. 2010 Jun;29(6):931-47
pubmed: 20498468
Insights Imaging. 2020 Feb 18;11(1):27
pubmed: 32072386
Radiographics. 2013 Mar-Apr;33(2):461-89
pubmed: 23479708
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005 Jan;14(1):20-6
pubmed: 15668471
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jun 14;378(24):2311-2320
pubmed: 29897847
Can Assoc Radiol J. 2015 Aug;66(3):198-207
pubmed: 26073217
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2016 Jul;20(14):2950-4
pubmed: 27460720
J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2017 Apr;15(4):465-472
pubmed: 28378479
Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2015 Apr;11(4):443-55
pubmed: 25666451
Int J Surg. 2010;8(5):353-5
pubmed: 20438874
Acta Cytol. 1999 May-Jun;43(3):334-8
pubmed: 10349358
Diagn Cytopathol. 2012 Feb;40(2):179-84
pubmed: 22246937
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2019 Jan;45(1):78-84
pubmed: 30340921
Breast J. 2011 May-Jun;17(3):246-55
pubmed: 21477170
Cancer Sci. 2011 Mar;102(3):509-15
pubmed: 21175994