1
|
Li S, Qu F, Yang Y, Wang L, Shen J, Shao Z. Value of stereotactic 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in non-palpable suspicious calcifications: an eight-year single institution experience with 587 patients. Gland Surg 2020; 9:1258-1266. [PMID: 33224800 DOI: 10.21037/gs-20-456] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
Background Vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VABB) has been routinely recommended for stereotactic intervention in cases of isolate mammographically-detected calcifications. Herein we aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic consistency and accuracy of calcified and noncalcified specimens obtained from same sites of sampling on mammography-visible calcifications. In addition, we presented the biopsy procedure and retrospectively evaluated the usefulness of VABB as well as the complications of this technique over an eight-year experience in our centre. Methods This single-institution observational cohort study included 587 patients referred for stereotactic 11-gauge VABB of 594 mammographically-detected calcifications between January 2010 and December 2018. The rate of histopathological underestimation, the false negative, the diagnostic consistency and accuracy between calcified and noncalcified specimens of VABB were comprehensively evaluated based on the surveillance data and final histopathological result of the surgical specimens. Results In total, 594 biopsy procedures were performed in 587 patients (mean age 46 years, range, 21-80 years). The average number of biopsy specimens was 14.7 (range, 9-21) per lesion. VABB pathological results revealed 471 (79.3%) benign, 39 (6.6%) high-risk, and 84 (14.1%) malignant cases. The diagnostic inconsistency between calcified and noncalcified specimens was 14.6% (105/123) for high-risk and malignant lesions. Furthermore, calcified specimens exhibited higher diagnostic accuracy of malignant lesion as compared with the noncalcified specimens (97.7% versus 82.6%, respectively). Underestimation rate for high-risk lesions and in situ carcinoma was 5.1% and 54.1%, respectively, along with a false negative rate of 6.25%. In addition, mild complications were reported with high patient tolerance. Conclusions Stereotactic 11G-VABB might be preferred for the investigation of non-palpable mammographically-detected calcifications in terms of accuracy and safety profile. The high prevalence of diagnostic discordance between the specimens with and without calcifications revealed a higher value of calcified specimens in diagnosing high-risk and malignant calcifications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shiping Li
- Department of Breast Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China
| | - Feilin Qu
- Department of Breast Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China
| | - Yinlong Yang
- Department of Breast Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China
| | - Lei Wang
- Department of Breast Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China
| | - Juping Shen
- Department of Breast Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China
| | - Zhiming Shao
- Department of Breast Surgery, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Yu CC, Cheung YC, Ueng SH, Chen SC. 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. Korean J Radiol 2020; 21:1220-1229. [PMID: 32729266 PMCID: PMC7462764 DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2019.0786] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/19/2019] [Revised: 04/10/2020] [Accepted: 04/14/2020] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chi Chang Yu
- Department of Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University Medical College, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
| | - Yun Chung Cheung
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University Medical College, Taoyuan, Taiwan
| | - Shir Hwa Ueng
- Department of Pathology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University Medical College, Taoyuan, Taiwan
| | - Shin Cheh Chen
- Department of Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University Medical College, Taoyuan, Taiwan
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Schiaffino S, Calabrese M, Melani EF, Trimboli RM, Cozzi A, Carbonaro LA, Di Leo G, Sardanelli F. Upgrade Rate of Percutaneously Diagnosed Pure Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 6458 Lesions. Radiology 2019; 294:76-86. [PMID: 31660803 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019190748] [Citation(s) in RCA: 47] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
Background Management of percutaneously diagnosed pure atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) is an unresolved clinical issue. Purpose To calculate the pooled upgrade rate of percutaneously diagnosed pure ADH. Materials and Methods A search of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was performed in October 2018. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, or PRISMA, guidelines were followed. A fixed- or random-effects model was used, along with subgroup and meta-regression analyses. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for study quality, and the Egger test was used for publication bias. Results Of 521 articles, 93 were analyzed, providing data for 6458 ADHs (5911 were managed with surgical excision and 547 with follow-up). Twenty-four studies used core-needle biopsy; 44, vacuum-assisted biopsy; 21, both core-needle and vacuum-assisted biopsy; and four, unspecified techniques. Biopsy was performed with stereotactic guidance in 29 studies; with US guidance in nine, with MRI guidance in nine, and with mixed guidance in eight. Overall heterogeneity was high (I2 = 80%). Subgroup analysis according to management yielded a pooled upgrade rate of 29% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 26%, 32%) for surgically excised lesions and 5% (95% CI: 4%, 8%) for lesions managed with follow-up (P < .001). Heterogeneity was entirely associated with surgically excised lesions (I2 = 78%) rather than those managed with follow-up (I2 = 0%). Most variability was explained by guidance and needle caliper (P = .15). At subgroup analysis of surgically excised lesions, the pooled upgrade rate was 42% (95% CI: 31%, 53%) for US guidance, 23% (95% CI: 19%, 27%) for stereotactic biopsy, and 32% (95% CI: 22%, 43%) for MRI guidance, with heterogeneity (52%, 63%, and 56%, respectively) still showing the effect of needle caliper. When the authors considered patients with apparent complete lesion removal after biopsy (subgroups in 14 studies), the pooled upgrade rate was 14% (95% CI: 8%, 23%). Study quality was low to medium; the risk of publication bias was low (P = .10). Conclusion Because of a pooled upgrade rate higher than 2% (independent of biopsy technique, needle size, imaging guidance, and apparent complete lesion removal), atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed with percutaneous needle biopsy should be managed with surgical excision. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Brem in this issue.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simone Schiaffino
- From the Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, San Donato Milanese, Italy (S.S., L.A.C., G.D.L., F.S.); Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy (M.C.); Unit of Radiology, Ente Ospedaliero Ospedali Galliera, Genoa, Italy (E.F.M.); and Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Mangiagalli 31, 20133 Milan, Italy (R.M.T., A.C., F.S.)
| | - Massimo Calabrese
- From the Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, San Donato Milanese, Italy (S.S., L.A.C., G.D.L., F.S.); Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy (M.C.); Unit of Radiology, Ente Ospedaliero Ospedali Galliera, Genoa, Italy (E.F.M.); and Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Mangiagalli 31, 20133 Milan, Italy (R.M.T., A.C., F.S.)
| | - Enrico Francesco Melani
- From the Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, San Donato Milanese, Italy (S.S., L.A.C., G.D.L., F.S.); Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy (M.C.); Unit of Radiology, Ente Ospedaliero Ospedali Galliera, Genoa, Italy (E.F.M.); and Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Mangiagalli 31, 20133 Milan, Italy (R.M.T., A.C., F.S.)
| | - Rubina Manuela Trimboli
- From the Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, San Donato Milanese, Italy (S.S., L.A.C., G.D.L., F.S.); Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy (M.C.); Unit of Radiology, Ente Ospedaliero Ospedali Galliera, Genoa, Italy (E.F.M.); and Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Mangiagalli 31, 20133 Milan, Italy (R.M.T., A.C., F.S.)
| | - Andrea Cozzi
- From the Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, San Donato Milanese, Italy (S.S., L.A.C., G.D.L., F.S.); Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy (M.C.); Unit of Radiology, Ente Ospedaliero Ospedali Galliera, Genoa, Italy (E.F.M.); and Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Mangiagalli 31, 20133 Milan, Italy (R.M.T., A.C., F.S.)
| | - Luca Alessandro Carbonaro
- From the Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, San Donato Milanese, Italy (S.S., L.A.C., G.D.L., F.S.); Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy (M.C.); Unit of Radiology, Ente Ospedaliero Ospedali Galliera, Genoa, Italy (E.F.M.); and Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Mangiagalli 31, 20133 Milan, Italy (R.M.T., A.C., F.S.)
| | - Giovanni Di Leo
- From the Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, San Donato Milanese, Italy (S.S., L.A.C., G.D.L., F.S.); Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy (M.C.); Unit of Radiology, Ente Ospedaliero Ospedali Galliera, Genoa, Italy (E.F.M.); and Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Mangiagalli 31, 20133 Milan, Italy (R.M.T., A.C., F.S.)
| | - Francesco Sardanelli
- From the Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, San Donato Milanese, Italy (S.S., L.A.C., G.D.L., F.S.); Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy (M.C.); Unit of Radiology, Ente Ospedaliero Ospedali Galliera, Genoa, Italy (E.F.M.); and Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Mangiagalli 31, 20133 Milan, Italy (R.M.T., A.C., F.S.)
| |
Collapse
|