 |
 |

Upstaging of Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia After Vacuum-Assisted 11-Gauge Stereotactic Core Needle Biopsy
David J. Winchester, MD;
Joel R. Bernstein, MD;
Jan M. Jeske, MD;
Mary H. Nicholson, MD;
Elizabeth A. Hahn, MA;
Robert A. Goldschmidt, MD;
William G. Watkin, MD;
Stephen F. Sener, MD;
Malcolm B. Bilimoria, MD;
Ermilio Barrera, Jr, MD;
David P. Winchester, MD
Arch Surg. 2003;138:619-623.
Background Nonpalpable mammographic abnormalities are frequently evaluated by means of a stereotactic core needle biopsy. This technique is a very sensitive indicator of invasive cancer, but is less reliable to discriminate between ductal carcinoma in situ and atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH). The objective of this study was to determine the correlation of the 11-gauge vacuum-assisted core needle biopsy to open biopsy when a diagnosis of ADH is obtained.
Hypothesis The use of 11-gauge vacuum-assisted stereotactic core needle biopsy does not conclusively diagnose ADH.
Design Retrospective analysis.
Setting University-affiliated teaching hospital.
Patients Mammographic findings were evaluated with an 11-gauge vacuum-assisted stereotactic core biopsy in 1750 patients. Seventy-seven patients were diagnosed as having ADH; of these, 65 underwent excisional biopsy.
Main Outcome Measures Pathological upstaging rate.
Results Of the 65 patients who underwent excisional breast biopsy, 11 (17%) had their condition upstaged to a breast cancer diagnosis. These patients had presented at a later age than those who retained a benign diagnosis after excisional biopsy. The number of cores taken did not correlate with diagnostic accuracy.
Conclusions Of the 65 patients who underwent open biopsy for ADH in this series, only 83% had an accurate diagnosis. A diagnosis of ADH by stereotactic core needle biopsy should be followed by an open excisional biopsy.
From the Departments of Surgery (Drs D. J. Winchester, Sener, Bilimoria, Barrera, and D. P. Winchester), Radiology (Drs Bernstein and Jeske), Preventive Medicine (Ms Hahn), and Pathology (Drs Goldschmidt and Watkin), Evanston Northwestern Healthcare, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill; and the Department of Radiology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis (Dr Nicholson).
CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLE
This Month in Archives of Surgery
Arch Surg. 2003;138(6):581.
FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
 |
Pathological Classification of DCIS and Planning of Therapeutic Management
BUONOMO et al.
Anticancer Res 2009;29:1499-1506.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia Diagnosed at Sonographically Guided 14-Gauge Core Needle Biopsy of Breast Mass
Youk et al.
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2009;192:1135-1141.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Extent and Histologic Pattern of Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia Present on Core Needle Biopsy Specimens of the Breast Can Predict Ductal Carcinoma In Situ in Subsequent Excision
Wagoner et al.
Am J Clin Pathol 2009;131:112-121.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Frequency and Upgrade Rates of Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia Diagnosed at Stereotactic Vacuum-Assisted Breast Biopsy: 9-Versus 11-Gauge
Eby et al.
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2009;192:229-234.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Is Surgical Excision Necessary for Focal Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia Found at Stereotactic Vacuum-Assisted Breast Biopsy?
Eby et al.
Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2008;15:3232-3238.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Underestimation of Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia at Sonographically Guided Core Biopsy of the Breast
Jang et al.
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2008;191:1347-1351.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia: Improved Accuracy with the 11-Gauge Vacuum-Assisted versus the 14-Gauge Core Biopsy Needle
Sohn et al.
Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2007;14:2497-2501.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Underestimation of Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia at MRI-Guided 9-Gauge Vacuum-Assisted Breast Biopsy
Liberman et al.
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2007;188:684-690.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Diagnostic accuracy of core biopsy for ductal carcinoma in situ and its implications for surgical practice.
Dillon et al.
J. Clin. Pathol. 2006;59:740-743.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|