Journal List > J Breast Cancer > v.10(4) > 1036082

Park, Bae, Suh, Park, Song, Kim, and Jung: Clinicopathologic Features of the Papillary Breast Lesions Diagnosed on Ultrasonography-guided Core Needle Biopsy

Abstract

Purpose

It is well recognized that distinguishing benign papillary lesions from malignant papillary lesions on core needle biopsy may pose difficult diagnostic problems. This study was conducted to define the potential role of ltrasoundguided core biopsy for the diagnosis of papillary lesions of the breast.

Methods

Twelve hundred and seventy nine women consecutively underwent 14-gauge core biopsy between January 2004 and December 2006. Of the 1,279 patients, 42 patients (3.2%) had papillary lesions of the breast on core needle biopsy. Of these 42 patients, 35 patients underwent surgical excision or sono-guided vacuum assisted excision. We compared the pathologic results of the excised specimens with the pathologic results on core needle biopsy.

Results

Of the 35 patients, 23 patients underwent surgical excision and 12 patients underwent sono-guided vacuum assisted excision. Three patients with intraductal papilloma without atypism on the core needle biopsy were confirmed to have intraductal papilloma accompanied with atypism by the final pathology. All 4 patients with papillomatosis or intraductal papilloma with atypism at core needle biopsy were confirmed to have intraductal papilloma with atypism by the final pathology. There were no patients identified to have breast cancer.

Conclusion

Our results revealed the accuracy of core needle biopsy for making the diagnosis of papillary lesions of the breast. Surgical excision may not always be necessary for papillary lesion of the breast that is diagnosed on core needle biopsy. Surgical excision is considered in patients with papillomatosis or papillary lesions with atypism seen on core needle biopsy.

Figures and Tables

Table 1
Clinical characteristics of patients with papillary neoplasm
jbc-10-269-i001
Table 2
Symptoms associated with papillary neoplasm
jbc-10-269-i002

FDH=florid ductal hyperplasia; ADH=atypical ductal hyperplasia.

Table 3
Ultrasonographic findings of papillary lesion
jbc-10-269-i003

BIRADS=Breast imaging and reporting data system.

Table 4
Relation between results of CNB and final pathologic results
jbc-10-269-i004

CNBx=core needle biopsy; FDH=florid ductal hyperplasia; ADH=atypical ductal hyperplasia.

References

1. Liberman L, Bracero N, Vuolo MA, Dershaw DD, Morris EA, Abramson AF, et al. Percutaneous large-core biopsy of papillary breast lesions. Am J Roentgenol. 1999. 172:331–337.
crossref
2. Tavassoli FA. Tavassoli FA, editor. Papillary lesions. Pathology of the Breast. 1992. Norwalk: Appleton & Lange;193–227.
3. Lam WW, Chu WC, Tang AP, Tse G, Ma TK. Role of radiologic features in the management of papillary lesions of the breast. Am J Roentgenol. 2006. 186:1322–1327.
crossref
4. Jacobs TW, Connolly JL, Schnitt SJ. Nonmalignant lesions in breast core needle biopsies: to excise or not to excise? Am J Surg Pathol. 2002. 26:1095–1110.
5. Ivan D, Selinko V, Sahin AA, Sneige N, Middleton LP. Accuracy of core needle biopsy diagnosis in assessing papillary breast lesions: histologic predictors of malignancy. Mod Pathol. 2004. 17:165–171.
crossref
6. Carder PJ, Garvican J, Haigh I, Liston JC. Needle core biopsy can reliably distinguish between benign and malignant papillary lesions of the breast. Histopathology. 2005. 46:320–327.
crossref
7. Agoff SN, Lawton TJ. Papillary lesions of the breast with and without atypical ductal hyperplasia: can we accurately predict benign behavior from core needle biopsy? Am J Clin Pathol. 2004. 122:440–443.
crossref
8. Rosen EL, Bentley RC, Baker JA, Soo MS. Imaging-guided core needle biopsy of papillary lesions of the breast. Am J Roentgenol. 2002. 179:1185–1192.
crossref
9. Philpotts LE, Shaheen NA, Jain KS, Carter D, Lee CH. Uncommon high-risk lesions of the breast diagnosed at stereotactic core-needle biopsy: clinical importance. Radiology. 2000. 216:831–837.
crossref
10. Jeffrey PB, Ljung BM. Benign and malignant papillary lesions of the breast. A cytomorphologic study. Am J Clin Pathol. 1994. 101:500–507.
crossref
11. Rubin E, Dempsey PJ, Pile NS, Bernreuter WK, Urist MM, Shumate CR, et al. Needle-localization biopsy of the breast: impact of a selective core needle biopsy program on yield. Radiology. 1995. 195:627–631.
crossref
12. Hoda SA, Rosen PP. Practical considerations in the pathologic diagnosis of needle core biopsies of breast. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002. 118:101–108.
crossref
13. Mercado CL, Hamele-Bena D, Singer C, Koenigsberg T, Pile-Spellman E, Higgins H, et al. Papillary lesions of the breast: evaluation with stereotactic directional vacuum-assisted biopsy. Radiology. 2001. 221:650–655.
crossref
14. Reynolds HE. Core needle biopsy of challenging benign breast conditions: a comprehensive literature review. Am J Roentgenol. 2000. 174:1245–1250.
15. Philpotts LE, Shaheen NA, Jain KS, Carter D, Lee CH. Uncommon high-risk lesions of the breast diagnosed at stereotactic core-needle biopsy: clinical importance. Radiology. 2000. 216:831–837.
crossref
16. Shah VI, Flowers CI, Douglas-Jones AG, Dallimore NS, Rashid M. Immunohistochemistry increases the accuracy of diagnosis of benign papillary lesions in breast core needle biopsy specimens. Histopathology. 2006. 48:683–691.
crossref
17. Paterok EM, Rosenthal H, Sabel M. Nipple discharge and abnormal galactogram. Results of a long-term study (1964-1990). Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1993. 50:227–234.
crossref
18. Dietz JR, Crowe JP, Grundfest S, Arrigain S, Kim JA. Directed duct excision by using mammary ductoscopy in patients with pathologic nipple discharge. Surgery. 2002. 132:582–587.
crossref
19. Woods ER, Helvie MA, Ikeda DM, Mandell SH, Chapel KL, Adler DD. Solitary breast papilloma: comparison of mammographic, galactographic, and pathologic findings. Am J Roentgenol. 1992. 159:487–491.
crossref
20. Funovics MA, Philipp MO, Lackner B, Fuchsjaeger M, Funovics PT, Metz V. Galactography: method of choice in pathologic nipple discharge? Eur Radiol. 2003. 13:94–99.
crossref
TOOLS
Similar articles