Outcomes of high-risk breast lesions diagnosed using image-guided core needle biopsy: results from a multicenter retrospective study.
B3 lesions
Core needle biopsy
breast cancer
image guided breast biopsy
vacuum assisted biopsy
Journal
Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey)
ISSN: 1305-3612
Titre abrégé: Diagn Interv Radiol
Pays: Turkey
ID NLM: 101241152
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 07 2023
20 07 2023
Historique:
medline:
21
7
2023
entrez:
30
3
2023
pubmed:
31
3
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The clinical management of high-risk lesions using image-guided biopsy is challenging. This study aimed to evaluate the rates at which such lesions were upgraded to malignancy and identify possible predictive factors for upgrading high-risk lesions. This retrospective multicenter analysis included 1.343 patients diagnosed with high-risk lesions using an image-guided core needle or vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB). Only patients managed using an excisional biopsy or with at least one year of documented radiological follow-up were included. For each, the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category, number of samples, needle thickness, and lesion size were correlated with malignancy upgrade rates in different histologic subtypes. Pearson's chi-squared test, the Fisher-Freeman-Halton test, and Fisher's exact test were used for the statistical analyses. The overall upgrade rate was 20.6%, with the highest rates in the subtypes of intraductal papilloma (IP) with atypia (44.7%; 55/123), followed by atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) (38.4%; 144/375), lobular neoplasia (LN) (12.7%; 7/55), papilloma without atypia (9.4%; 58/611), flat epithelial atypia (FEA) (8.7%; 10/114), and radial scars (RSs) (4.6%; 3/65). There was a significant relationship between the upgrade rate and BI-RADS category, number of samples, and lesion size Lesion size was the most predictive factor for an upgrade in all subtypes. ADH and atypical IP showed considerable upgrade rates to malignancy, requiring surgical excision. The LN, IP without atypia, pure FEA, and RS subtypes showed lower malignancy rates when the BI-RADS category was lower and in smaller lesions that had been adequately sampled using VAB. After being discussed in a multidisciplinary meeting, these cases could be managed with follow-up instead of excision.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36994925
doi: 10.4274/dir.2022.221790
pmc: PMC10679644
doi:
Types de publication
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
579-587Références
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Feb;198(2):256-63
pubmed: 22268166
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Jul;164(2):295-304
pubmed: 28474262
Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2020 Mar - Apr;49(2):124-132
pubmed: 30616911
Curr Oncol Rep. 2018 Mar 23;20(4):34
pubmed: 29572753
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011 Apr;37(4):279-89
pubmed: 21306860
Int J Cancer. 2011 Sep 15;129(6):1417-24
pubmed: 21128240
Breast J. 2013 Nov-Dec;19(6):611-7
pubmed: 24102818
Cancer. 2016 Sep 15;122(18):2819-27
pubmed: 27315013
Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2019 Sep - Oct;48(5):462-466
pubmed: 30075881
Am J Surg. 2014 Jan;207(1):24-31
pubmed: 24112677
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008 Mar;190(3):637-41
pubmed: 18287433
Br J Cancer. 2007 Apr 23;96(8):1253-7
pubmed: 17438578
Am J Surg Pathol. 2009 Jul;33(7):1078-84
pubmed: 19390424
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018 Nov;16(11):1391-1396
pubmed: 30442737
Hum Pathol. 2016 Feb;48:76-80
pubmed: 26772402
Am J Surg. 2014 Aug;208(2):260-7
pubmed: 24680949
Radiology. 2004 Jun;231(3):617-21
pubmed: 15163803
Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 Mar;23(3):722-8
pubmed: 26542585
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Feb;198(2):W132-40
pubmed: 22268202
Mod Pathol. 2008 Oct;21(10):1208-16
pubmed: 18660792
Br J Radiol. 2018 May;91(1085):20180003
pubmed: 29451396
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019 Feb;174(1):165-177
pubmed: 30460464
Ann Surg Oncol. 2013 Jan;20(1):94-101
pubmed: 22878621
Breast. 2011 Jun;20(3):264-70
pubmed: 21208804
Ann Surg Oncol. 2011 Mar;18(3):752-61
pubmed: 20972636
J Clin Pathol. 2016 Mar;69(3):248-54
pubmed: 26370622
Ann Diagn Pathol. 2018 Aug;35:62-68
pubmed: 29793212
Mod Pathol. 2016 Dec;29(12):1471-1484
pubmed: 27538687
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009 May;192(5):W268
pubmed: 19380536
Am J Surg. 2012 Jun;203(6):721-5
pubmed: 22153085
Mod Pathol. 2013 Jun;26(6):762-71
pubmed: 23307062
Int J Surg. 2018 Jan;49:27-31
pubmed: 29146271
Cancer. 2013 Mar 1;119(5):1073-9
pubmed: 23132235
Am J Surg Pathol. 2015 Jun;39(6):779-85
pubmed: 25634748
Ann Surg. 2012 Feb;255(2):259-65
pubmed: 21989373
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2018 Jan;44(1):53-58
pubmed: 29174198
Clin Radiol. 2018 Aug;73(8):682-692
pubmed: 29773220
Br J Radiol. 2018 Jan;91(1081):20170484
pubmed: 29072858
Eur Radiol. 2021 Feb;31(2):920-927
pubmed: 32816199
Radiol Imaging Cancer. 2021 Jan 22;3(1):e200116
pubmed: 33778758
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010 Apr;194(4):1146-51
pubmed: 20308524
Insights Imaging. 2020 Feb 5;11(1):12
pubmed: 32025985
Semin Roentgenol. 2018 Oct;53(4):252-260
pubmed: 30449343
Clin Breast Cancer. 2013 Dec;13(6):450-4
pubmed: 24094905
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2015 Apr;12(4):227-38
pubmed: 25622978
Clin Breast Cancer. 2017 Aug;17(5):367-372
pubmed: 28438672
Ann Diagn Pathol. 2013 Oct;17(5):434-6
pubmed: 23773891