Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at sonographically guided core needle biopsy: frequency, final surgical outcome, and factors associated with underestimation.

OBJECTIVE The purposes of this article were to review the mammographic and sonographic features of breast masses yielding atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) at sonographically guided biopsy, evaluate the surgical pathology outcome of these lesions, and determine whether clinical or imaging features can be used to predict upgrade to malignancy. MATERIALS AND METHODS Among 6325 sonographically guided biopsies (2003- 2010) (14-gauge cores), 56 yielded the diagnosis of ADH (0.9%). Six patients were excluded (lost to follow-up). Fifty lesions were surgically excised in 45 patients. Mammographic and sonographic features were analyzed in consensus by two radiologists using the BI-RADS lexicon. RESULTS Forty-five patients (mean age, 56 years; 12 < 50 years; six with synchronous breast carcinoma) had 50 ADH lesions (median size, 0.6 cm). Surgical excision yielded malignancy in 28 cases (56% underestimation rate). Among 42 mammograms (47 lesions), 30 lesions were identified (30/47, 64%) as masses (12/30, 40%), asymmetric densities (10/30, 33%), microcalcifications (4/30, 13%), and architectural distortions (4/30, 13%). Sonographically, most lesions appeared as hypoechoic masses (64%, 30/47) with irregular shape (51%, 24/47), microlobulated margins (49%, 23/47), no posterior acoustic feature (25/47, 53%), abrupt interface (70%, 33/47), and parallel orientation (57%, 27/47). No mammographic and sonographic features were associated with malignant outcome, whereas age less than 50 years (p = 0.03) and synchronous malignancy (p = 0.03) were associated with malignant outcome. CONCLUSION ADH diagnosed at sonographically guided 14-gauge core needle biopsy shows a high underestimation rate. Synchronous carcinoma or age less than 50 years is associated with malignant outcome.

[1]  Radhakrishna Selvi BI-RADS for Ultrasound , 2015 .

[2]  D. Chan,et al.  Factors predictive of breast cancer in open biopsy in cases with atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed by ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy. , 2011, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[3]  S. Rizzo,et al.  Stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy is not a therapeutic procedure even when all mammographically found calcifications are removed: analysis of 4,086 procedures. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[4]  Ahwon Lee,et al.  Predictive factors for breast cancer in patients diagnosed atypical ductal hyperplasia at core needle biopsy , 2009, World journal of surgical oncology.

[5]  K. Khetani,et al.  Mammographically non-calcified ductal carcinoma in situ: sonographic features with pathological correlation in 35 patients. , 2009, Clinical radiology.

[6]  J. Youk,et al.  Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at sonographically guided 14-gauge core needle biopsy of breast mass. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[7]  W. Moon,et al.  Underestimation of atypical ductal hyperplasia at sonographically guided core biopsy of the breast. , 2008, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[8]  E. Cho,et al.  Application of sonographic BI-RADS to synchronous breast nodules detected in patients with breast cancer. , 2008, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[9]  J. Youk,et al.  Sonographically guided 14-gauge core needle biopsy of breast masses: a review of 2,420 cases with long-term follow-up. , 2008, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  W. Han,et al.  Scoring system for predicting malignancy in patients diagnosed with atypical ductal hyperplasia at ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy , 2008, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[11]  D. Giri,et al.  Stereotactic breast biopsy: comparison of histologic underestimation rates with 11- and 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[12]  Eun-Kyung Kim,et al.  Missed breast cancers at US-guided core needle biopsy: how to reduce them. , 2007, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[13]  F. Tavassoli,et al.  Discrepancies in the diagnosis of intraductal proliferative lesions of the breast and its management implications: results of a multinational survey , 2006, Virchows Archiv.

[14]  I. Grady,et al.  Ultrasound-guided, vacuum-assisted, percutaneous excision of breast lesions: an accurate technique in the diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia. , 2005, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[15]  E. Hahn,et al.  Upstaging of atypical ductal hyperplasia after vacuum-assisted 11-gauge stereotactic core needle biopsy. , 2003, Archives of Surgery.

[16]  D. Ikeda,et al.  Atypical ductal hyperplasia: can some lesions be defined as probably benign after stereotactic 11-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy, eliminating the recommendation for surgical excision? , 2002, Radiology.

[17]  L. Liberman,et al.  Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). , 2002, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[18]  D. Noh,et al.  US of ductal carcinoma in situ. , 2002, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[19]  A. Renshaw,et al.  Atypical ductal hyperplasia in breast core needle biopsies. Correlation of size of the lesion, complete removal of the lesion, and the incidence of carcinoma in follow-up biopsies. , 2001, American journal of clinical pathology.

[20]  Darrell N. Smith,et al.  Atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ as revealed by large-core needle breast biopsy: results of surgical excision. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[21]  L. Liberman,et al.  Clinical management issues in percutaneous core breast biopsy. , 2000, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[22]  L. Liberman,et al.  Calcification retrieval at stereotactic, 11-gauge, directional, vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. , 1998, Radiology.

[23]  A. Stavros,et al.  Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. , 1995, Radiology.

[24]  A. Stavros,et al.  US-guided automated large-core breast biopsy. , 1993, Radiology.

[25]  S J Schnitt,et al.  Interobserver Reproducibility in the Diagnosis of Ductal Proliferative Breast Lesions Using Standardized Criteria , 1992, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[26]  D. Page,et al.  Combined histologic and cytologic criteria for the diagnosis of mammary atypical ductal hyperplasia. , 1992, Human pathology.

[27]  D M Ikeda,et al.  Atypical hyperplasia of the breast: mammographic appearance and histologic correlation. , 1991, Radiology.

[28]  T. T. Alagaratnam,et al.  Limitations of mammography in Chinese females. , 1985, Clinical radiology.

[29]  Gilmore Hr,et al.  Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. , 1968, Oral surgery, oral medicine, and oral pathology.

[30]  I Iu IUDIN,et al.  [Tumors of the mammary gland]. , 1955, Meditsinskaia sestra.