scholarly journals Simplifying Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System classification of mammograms with pure suspicious calcifications

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 82-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gisela LG Menezes ◽  
Gonneke AO Winter-Warnars ◽  
Eva L Koekenbier ◽  
Emma J Groen ◽  
Helena M Verkooijen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ductal Carcinoma In Situ ◽  
Carcinoma In Situ ◽  
Breast Imaging ◽  
Breast Biopsy ◽  
Ductal Carcinoma ◽  
Data System ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy ◽  
Stereotactic Breast Biopsy ◽  
Invasive Carcinomas

Objectives To investigate the risk of malignancy following stereotactic breast biopsy of calcifications classified as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 3, 4, and 5. Methods The study included women with pure calcifications (not associated with masses or architectural distortions) who underwent stereotactic breast biopsy at the Dutch Cancer Institute between January 2011 and October 2013. Suspicious calcifications (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 3, 4, or 5) detected on mammography were biopsied. All lesions were assessed by breast radiologists and classified according to the BI-RADS lexicon. Results Overall, 473 patients underwent 497 stereotactic breast biopsies. Sixty-six percent (326/497) of calcifications were classified B4, 30% (148/497) B3, and 4% (23/497) B5. Of the 226 (45%) malignant lesions, there were 182 pure ductal carcinoma in situ, 22 mixed ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive carcinomas (ductal or lobular), 21 pure invasive carcinomas, and one angiosarcoma. Malignancy was found in 32% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24 to 0.39) of B3, 49% (95% CI 0.43 to 0.54) of B4, and 83% (95% CI 0.61 to 0.95) of B5 calcifications. Conclusions Considering the high predictive value for malignancy in B3 calcifications, we propose that these lesions should be classified as suspicious (B4), especially in a screening setting.

Stereotactic Breast Biopsy of Nonpalpable Lesions: Determinants of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ Underestimation Rates

Radiology ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 218 (2) ◽  
pp. 497-502 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger J. Jackman ◽  
Fred Burbank ◽  
Steve H. Parker ◽  
W. Phil Evans ◽  
Mary C. Lechner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ductal Carcinoma In Situ ◽  
Carcinoma In Situ ◽  
Breast Biopsy ◽  
Ductal Carcinoma ◽  
Stereotactic Breast Biopsy ◽  
Nonpalpable Lesions

scholarly journals Histologic and Radiographic Analysis of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Diagnosed Using Stereotactic Incisional Core Breast Biopsy

2002 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 95-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Bonnett ◽  
Tracy Wallis ◽  
Michelle Rossmann ◽  
Nat L Pernick ◽  
Kathryn A Carolin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ductal Carcinoma In Situ ◽  
Carcinoma In Situ ◽  
Breast Biopsy ◽  
Ductal Carcinoma ◽  
Radiographic Analysis

Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia and Ductal Carcinoma In Situ as Revealed by Large-Core Needle Breast Biopsy

2000 ◽  
Vol 175 (5) ◽  
pp. 1341-1346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marla L. Rosenfield Darling ◽  
Darrell N. Smith ◽  
Susan C. Lester ◽  
Carolyn Kaelin ◽  
Donna-Lee G. Selland ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ductal Carcinoma In Situ ◽  
Carcinoma In Situ ◽  
Breast Biopsy ◽  
Ductal Carcinoma ◽  
Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia ◽  
Large Core ◽  
Core Needle ◽  
Ductal Hyperplasia

Diagnosis of Papillary Breast Lesions on Core Needle Biopsy: Upgrade Rates and Interobserver Variability

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (7) ◽  
pp. 736-743 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lianqun Qiu ◽  
Daniel D. Mais ◽  
Marlo Nicolas ◽  
Jennifer Nanyes ◽  
Kenneth Kist ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ductal Carcinoma In Situ ◽  
Carcinoma In Situ ◽  
Breast Imaging ◽  
Interobserver Variability ◽  
Ductal Carcinoma ◽  
Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia ◽  
Breast Lesions ◽  
Ductal Hyperplasia ◽  
Papillary Lesions

The histologic distinction between papillary breast lesions remains challenging, especially with core biopsy (CB) specimens. A retrospective review of the clinical, imaging, and histologic findings was performed for patients with papillary breast lesions on CB from 2013 to 2017. The interpretation accuracy was expressed as upgrade rate relative to the excision diagnosis. Diagnostic reproducibility with and without immunohistochemistry was analyzed as interobserver variability among 3 board-certified pathologists. Among 57 papillary lesions with biopsies and excisions available for review, the upgrade rates were 0% for benign papilloma, 30% for papilloma with atypical ductal hyperplasia, and 25% for papilloma with ductal carcinoma in situ, resulting in an overall upgrade rate of 11.1%. There were no statistical differences between patients in an upgrade group and others, when comparing the patient age, clinical presentation, BI-RADS (Breast Imaging Reporting and Database System) category, location, and histologic grade. The overall interobserver variability of the 60 consecutive core biopsies of papillary breast lesions by morphology alone was in the “substantial” agreement range (κ = 0.79, 86% agreement), with an excellent κ score of 0.88 for papilloma (92% agreement). “Substantial” and “fair” κ values were seen for papilloma with atypical ductal hyperplasia/ductal carcinoma in situ (0.74, 84% agreement) and invasive carcinoma (0.40, 60% agreement). Use of immunohistochemical stains improved the κ values into “excellent” range (0.92, 94% agreement). Our study favors a conservative approach in the management of benign papillomas, at least in cases of good radiologic-pathologic concordance. Papillary breast lesions with atypia/malignancy show lower diagnostic reproducibility on CB, and utility of immunohistochemistry is recommended in challenging cases.

scholarly journals The influence of clinicopathological features on the predictive accuracy of conventional breast imaging in determining the extent of screen-detected high-grade pure ductal carcinoma in situ

2011 ◽  
Vol 93 (5) ◽  
pp. 385-390 ◽  
Author(s):  
L Hayward ◽  
RS Oeppen ◽  
AV Grima ◽  
GT Royle ◽  
CM Rubin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ductal Carcinoma In Situ ◽  
Carcinoma In Situ ◽  
Breast Imaging ◽  
Predictive Accuracy ◽  
Ductal Carcinoma ◽  
Preoperative Staging ◽  
Invasive Disease ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Excision Rate

INTRODUCTION The extent of calcified ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) detected by screening mammography is a determinant for treatment with breast conserving surgery (BCS). However, DCIS may be uncalcified and almost a quarter of patients with DCIS treated initially by BCS either require a second operation or are found to have unexpected invasive disease following surgery. Identification of these cases might guide selective implementation of additional diagnostic procedures. METHODS A retrospective review of patients with a preoperative diagnosis of pure high-grade DCIS at the Southampton and Salisbury Breast Screening Unit over a ten-year period was carried out. Mammograms were reviewed independently by a consultant radiologist and additional factors including the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS®) breast density score, DCIS extent and disease location within the breast recorded. RESULTS Unexpected invasive disease was found in 35 of 144 patients (24%). Within our unit the re-excision rate for all screen-detected DCIS is currently 23% but for patients included in this study with high-grade DCIS the re-excision rate was 39% (34/87). The extent of DCIS (p=0.008) and lack of expression of the oestrogen receptor (ER) predicted the requirement for re-excision in both univariate (p=0.004) and multivariate analysis (p=0.005). CONCLUSIONS High-grade DCIS may be focally uncalcified, leading to underestimation of disease extent, which might be related to ER status. Invasive foci associated with high-grade DCIS are often mammographically occult. Exploration of additional biomarkers and targeted use of further diagnostic techniques may improve the preoperative staging of DCIS.

Is Ductal Carcinoma in Situ with “Possible Invasion” More Predictive of Invasive Carcinoma than Pure Ductal Carcinoma in Situ?

2012 ◽  
Vol 63 (2) ◽  
pp. 146-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tal Arazi-Kleinman ◽  
Petrina A. Causer ◽  
Sharon Nofech-Mozes ◽  
Roberta A. Jong
Keyword(s):  
Ductal Carcinoma In Situ ◽  
Carcinoma In Situ ◽  
Invasive Carcinoma ◽  
Breast Biopsy ◽  
Ductal Carcinoma ◽  
Clinical Indication ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Sample Number

Objectives To compare the underestimation of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) vs DCIS with “possible invasion” at breast biopsy and to determine if any factors related to clinical indication, imaging abnormality, biopsy, or DCIS-grade affected the likelihood of underestimation. Methods Of 3836 consecutive lesions that were biopsied by using a 14-gauge needle, 117 lesions revealed DCIS. Surgical pathology results of invasive carcinoma were compared with needle biopsy results of DCIS or DCIS with possible invasion. Clinical indication, imaging abnormality, biopsy guidance modality, sample number, and histologic grade were recorded. Yates corrected χ2 and Fisher exact tests were used to determine differences between groups. Results A total of 101 lesions were DCIS and 16 were DCIS with possible invasion at biopsy. Thirty-six of 117 lesions (31%) revealed invasive carcinoma at resection pathology. Invasive carcinoma was present more often when DCIS with possible invasion was diagnosed compared with pure DCIS (7/16 [44%] vs 29/101 [29%], P = .36). No factor, including clinical indication, imaging abnormality, biopsy guidance method, sample number, or grade, was found to significantly affect the likelihood of underestimation for lesions diagnosed as DCIS vs DCIS with “possible invasion.” The likelihood of pure DCIS underestimation significantly increased when lesions were high grade compared with either intermediate or low grade (18/44 [41%] vs 9/44 [21%] vs 2/10 [20%], P = .03). Conclusion For lesions biopsied by using a 14-gauge needle, there is a trend towards underestimation of the presence of invasive carcinoma when pathology reveals DCIS with possible invasion compared with pure DCIS. High-grade DCIS was significantly more likely to be underestimated.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document