Annals of surgical oncology · 2023
Is Surgical Excision of Focal Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia Warranted? Experience at a Tertiary Care Center.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Grabenstetter Anne, Brennan Sandra B, Sevilimedu Varadan, Kuba M Gabriela, Giri Dilip D, Wen Hannah Yong, Morrow Monica, Brogi Edi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The core-needle biopsy (CNB) diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) generally mandates follow-up excision, but controversy exists on whether small foci of ADH require surgical management. This study evaluated the upgrade rate at excision of focal ADH (fADH), defined as 1 focus spanning ≤ 2 mm.
METHODS: We retrospectively identified in-house CNBs with ADH as the highest-risk lesion obtained between January 2013 and December 2017. A radiologist assessed radiologic-pathologic concordance. All CNB slides were reviewed by two breast pathologists, and ADH was classified as fADH and nonfocal ADH based on extent. Only cases with follow-up excision were included. The slides of excision specimens with upgrade were reviewed.
RESULTS: The final study cohort consisted of 208 radiologic-pathologic concordant CNBs, including 98 fADH and 110 nonfocal ADH. The imaging targets were calcifications (n = 157), a mass (n = 15), nonmass enhancement (n = 27), and mass enhancement (n = 9). Excision of fADH yielded seven (7%) upgrades (5 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), 2 invasive carcinoma) versus 24 (22%) upgrades (16 DCIS, 8 invasive carcinoma) at excision of nonfocal ADH (p = 0.01). Both invasive carcinomas found at excision of fADH were subcentimeter tubular carcinomas away from the biopsy site and deemed incidental.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data show a significantly lower upgrade rate at excision of focal ADH than nonfocal ADH. This information can be valuable if nonsurgical management of patients with radiologic-pathologic concordant CNB diagnosis of focal ADH is being considered.
METHODS: We retrospectively identified in-house CNBs with ADH as the highest-risk lesion obtained between January 2013 and December 2017. A radiologist assessed radiologic-pathologic concordance. All CNB slides were reviewed by two breast pathologists, and ADH was classified as fADH and nonfocal ADH based on extent. Only cases with follow-up excision were included. The slides of excision specimens with upgrade were reviewed.
RESULTS: The final study cohort consisted of 208 radiologic-pathologic concordant CNBs, including 98 fADH and 110 nonfocal ADH. The imaging targets were calcifications (n = 157), a mass (n = 15), nonmass enhancement (n = 27), and mass enhancement (n = 9). Excision of fADH yielded seven (7%) upgrades (5 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), 2 invasive carcinoma) versus 24 (22%) upgrades (16 DCIS, 8 invasive carcinoma) at excision of nonfocal ADH (p = 0.01). Both invasive carcinomas found at excision of fADH were subcentimeter tubular carcinomas away from the biopsy site and deemed incidental.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data show a significantly lower upgrade rate at excision of focal ADH than nonfocal ADH. This information can be valuable if nonsurgical management of patients with radiologic-pathologic concordant CNB diagnosis of focal ADH is being considered.