Atypia on breast core needle biopsies: reproducibility and significance.

This study analyzes the interobserver variability in interpreting atypia on breast core needle biopsies and in each category of atypia calculates the upgrade risk of carcinoma in the subsequent surgical excision. We identified 51 cases of atypia on breast core needle biopsies performed at our institution from January 2003 to August 2006. The atypia was classified into 4 categories: atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH), flat epithelial atypia (FEA), and atypia of undetermined significance (AUS). After a tutorial session, these cases were independently reviewed by four pathologists, whose overall multi-rater kappa value for agreement on different categories of atypia was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.69-0.89), which is within the substantial agreement range. The upgrade risk in each category of atypia was as follows: ADH 20% (p = 0.04); ALH 10% (p = 0.6); FEA 16.6% (p = 0.23), and AUS 100% (p = 0.96). Based on our findings, we conclude that follow-up excision should be performed after a diagnosis of ADH. The upgrade risk did not reach statistical significance in ALH or FEA. Although follow-up excision cannot be strongly recommended in ALH and FEA, it should be considered since the upgrade risk is not negligible. Strict adherence to the diagnostic criteria and tutorial sessions can help pathologists to achieve substantial agreement in interpreting atypia on breast core needle biopsies.

[1]  Baljit Singh,et al.  Is surgical excision necessary for the management of atypical lobular hyperplasia and lobular carcinoma in situ diagnosed on core needle biopsy?: a report of 38 cases and review of the literature. , 2009, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[2]  E. Mendelson,et al.  Atypical lobular hyperplasia and classic lobular carcinoma in situ in core biopsy specimens: routine excision is not necessary , 2008, Modern Pathology.

[3]  S. Jaffer,et al.  Lobular neoplasia on core needle biopsy does not require excision , 2008, Cancer.

[4]  A. Vincent-Salomon,et al.  Impact of immunohistochemical markers, CK5/6 and E‐cadherin on diagnostic agreement in non‐invasive proliferative breast lesions , 2008, Histopathology.

[5]  Suzanne M. Brandt,et al.  The "Rosen Triad": tubular carcinoma, lobular carcinoma in situ, and columnar cell lesions. , 2008, Advances in anatomic pathology.

[6]  M. Martel,et al.  Flat DIN 1 (flat epithelial atypia) on core needle biopsy: 63 cases identified retrospectively among 1,751 core biopsies performed over an 8-year period (1992–1999) , 2007, Virchows Archiv.

[7]  R. Vierkant,et al.  Stratification of breast cancer risk in women with atypia: a Mayo cohort study. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[8]  A. Vincent-Salomon,et al.  Epithelial atypia in biopsies performed for microcalcifications. Practical considerations about 2,833 serially sectioned surgical biopsies with a long follow-up , 2007, Virchows Archiv.

[9]  D. Dabbs,et al.  The Clinical Significance of Lobular Neoplasia on Breast Core Biopsy , 2007, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[10]  J. Reis-Filho,et al.  Lobular in situ neoplasia and columnar cell lesions: diagnosis in breast core biopsies and implications for management , 2007, Pathology.

[11]  Ralph T. Wynn,et al.  Underestimation of atypical ductal hyperplasia at MRI-guided 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[12]  I. Ellis,et al.  High Frequency of Coexistence of Columnar Cell Lesions, Lobular Neoplasia, and Low Grade Ductal Carcinoma In Situ With Invasive Tubular Carcinoma and Invasive Lobular Carcinoma , 2007, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[13]  S. Ciatto,et al.  Underestimation of malignancy of breast core‐needle biopsy , 2007, Cancer.

[14]  C. Kleer,et al.  Significance of flat epithelial atypia on mammotome core needle biopsy: Should it be excised? , 2007, Human pathology.

[15]  M. Dillon,et al.  Predictive Value of Breast Lesions of “Uncertain Malignant Potential” and “Suspicious for Malignancy” Determined by Needle Core Biopsy , 2007, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[16]  J. Margenthaler,et al.  Correlation between core biopsy and excisional biopsy in breast high-risk lesions. , 2006, American journal of surgery.

[17]  A. Renshaw,et al.  Lobular neoplasia in breast core needle biopsy specimens is associated with a low risk of ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive carcinoma on subsequent excision. , 2006, American journal of clinical pathology.

[18]  Sunil Badve,et al.  Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of flat epithelial atypia of the breast , 2006, Modern Pathology.

[19]  P. Tan,et al.  Pathological diagnosis of columnar cell lesions of the breast: are there issues of reproducibility? , 2005, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[20]  J. Silverman,et al.  Follow-up Surgical Excision Is Indicated When Breast Core Needle Biopsies Show Atypical Lobular Hyperplasia or Lobular Carcinoma In Situ: A Correlative Study of 33 Patients With Review of the Literature , 2005, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[21]  Lobular carcinoma in situ or atypical lobular hyperplasia at core-needle biopsy: is excisional biopsy necessary? , 2004, Radiology.

[22]  A. Cruz,et al.  Pathologic review of atypical hyperplasia identified by image-guided breast needle core biopsy. Correlation with excision specimen. , 2009, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

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

[24]  Sandra J Shin,et al.  Excisional biopsy should be performed if lobular carcinoma in situ is seen on needle core biopsy. , 2009, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[25]  S. Parker,et al.  Atypical ductal hyperplasia of the breast diagnosed by 11-gauge directional vacuum-assisted biopsy. , 2002, American journal of surgery.

[26]  R. Poppiti,et al.  Large‐Needle Core Biopsy in Atypical Intraductal Epithelial Hyperplasia Including Immunohistochemical Expression of High Molecular Weight Cytokeratin: Analysis of Results of a Single Institution , 2002, The breast journal.

[27]  G. Sterrett,et al.  Atypical ductal hyperplasia and atypia of uncertain significance in core biopsies from mammographically detected lesions: correlation with excision diagnosis , 2002, Pathology.

[28]  H. K. Jacobs,et al.  Upgrade rate of core biopsy-determined atypical ductal hyperplasia by open excisional biopsy. , 2001, American journal of surgery.

[29]  D. Page,et al.  Core Biopsy of the Breast With Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia: A Probabilistic Approach to Reporting , 2001, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[30]  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.

[31]  W. Berg,et al.  Atypical lobular hyperplasia or lobular carcinoma in situ at core-needle breast biopsy. , 2001, Radiology.

[32]  W. Symmans,et al.  Mammotome core biopsy for mammary microcalcification , 2001, Cancer.

[33]  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.

[34]  F. Greene,et al.  Is surgical excision necessary for atypical ductal hyperplasia of the breast diagnosed by Mammotome? , 2000, American journal of surgery.

[35]  H. Frierson,et al.  Association of breast cancer with the finding of atypical ductal hyperplasia at core breast biopsy. , 1997, Annals of surgery.

[36]  J. Rosai,et al.  Borderline Epithelial Lesions of the Breast , 1991, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[37]  David L. Page,et al.  Atypical hyperplastic lesions of the female breast. A long‐term follow‐up study , 1985, Cancer.

[38]  T. Akiyama,et al.  :A long term follow-up study , 1982 .

[39]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[40]  H. Toutenburg.  Fleiss, J. L.: Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. John Wiley & Sons, New York‐London‐Sydney‐Toronto 1973. XIII, 233 S. , 1974 .