Factors Indicating Surgical Excision in Classical Type of Lobular Neoplasia of the Breast.
Atypical lobular hyperplasia
B3 lesion
Core needle biopsy
High-risk lesion
Lobular carcinoma in situ
Lobular neoplasia
Vacuum-assisted biopsy
Journal
Breast care (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 1661-3791
Titre abrégé: Breast Care (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101254060
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2022
Apr 2022
Historique:
received:
07
11
2020
accepted:
12
04
2021
entrez:
15
6
2022
pubmed:
16
6
2022
medline:
16
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Classical type of lobular neoplasia (LN) encompassing both atypical lobular hyperplasia and classical lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast is a lesion with uncertain malignant potential and has been the topic of several studies with conflicting outcome results. The aim of our study was to clarify outcome-relevant factors and treatment options of classical LN. We performed a pathological re-evaluation of the preoperative biopsy specimens and a retrospective clinical and radiological data analysis of 160 patients with LN from the Breast Center Zurich. Open surgery was performed in 65 patients, vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) in 79 patients, and surveillance after breast core needle biopsy (CNB) in 16 patients. The upgrade rate into ductal carcinoma in situ/invasive cancer was the highest in case of imaging/histology discordance (40%). If the number of foci in the biopsy specimen was ≥3, the upgrade rate in the consecutive surgical specimens was increased ( Surveillance or subsequent VAB after CNB of LN is sufficient in most cases. Careful consideration of individual radiological and histological factors is required to identify patients with a high risk of upgrade into malignancy. In those cases, surgical excision is indicated.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35702498
doi: 10.1159/000516609
pii: brc-0017-0121
pmc: PMC9149506
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
121-128Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 by S. Karger AG, Basel.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Références
Br J Cancer. 2007 Apr 23;96(8):1253-7
pubmed: 17438578
Cancer. 2006 May 15;106(10):2104-12
pubmed: 16604564
Ann Surg Oncol. 2007 Feb;14(2):704-11
pubmed: 17151788
Cancer. 2013 Mar 1;119(5):1073-9
pubmed: 23132235
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019 Apr;174(2):279-296
pubmed: 30506111
J Pathol. 2005 Jan;205(2):248-54
pubmed: 15641021
Am Surg. 2008 Feb;74(2):172-7
pubmed: 18306873
Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2014 Jul;23(3):487-503
pubmed: 24882347
Breast Dis. 2016 Jan 25;36(1):5-14
pubmed: 27177338
Eur J Radiol. 2007 Feb;61(2):192-4
pubmed: 17164080
Breast. 2016 Jun;27:109-15
pubmed: 27060553
J Clin Pathol. 2007 Dec;60(12):1300-6
pubmed: 17630399
Am J Surg Pathol. 2000 Dec;24(12):1650-6
pubmed: 11117786
Lancet. 2000 Feb 26;355(9205):724-5
pubmed: 10703809
J Pathol. 2018 Apr;244(4):460-468
pubmed: 29344954
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2019 May;143(5):621-627
pubmed: 30576240
Eur J Radiol. 2013 Mar;82(3):388-97
pubmed: 22483607
Int J Surg Pathol. 2007 Oct;15(4):369-75
pubmed: 17913943
Pathology. 2016 Jan;48(1):25-9
pubmed: 27020205
Am J Pathol. 1941 Jul;17(4):491-496.3
pubmed: 19970575
Eur Radiol. 2011 Jun;21(6):1200-6
pubmed: 21225267
Breast. 2016 Dec;30:125-129
pubmed: 27718416
Clin Radiol. 2019 Aug;74(8):653.e19-653.e25
pubmed: 31078275
BMC Cancer. 2018 Aug 16;18(1):829
pubmed: 30115017
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017 Apr 23;14(4):
pubmed: 28441745
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018 Apr;168(3):649-654
pubmed: 29299726
Ann Surg Oncol. 2012 Dec;19(13):4124-8
pubmed: 22847126
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2015 Apr;12(4):227-38
pubmed: 25622978
Radiology. 2013 Nov;269(2):340-7
pubmed: 23901123