Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Underestimation Research Articles

Ultrasound-Guided Vacuum-Assisted Breast Biopsy for Breast Intraductal Lesions: a Meta-Analysis of Underestimation and Pathological Nipple Discharge Cure Rates

Background: Breast intraductal lesions present a diagnostic challenge due to the diverse spectrum of histologic changes. Vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) has evolved as a pivotal diagnostic and therapeutic modality. Yet, concerns about the underestimation of malignancy using VAB persist. This review examines the underestimation rates of Ultrasound-guided VAB (US-VAB) for intraductal lesions and evaluates the effectiveness of VAB in addressing pathological nipple discharge (PND). Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive search was performed across Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science. Studies detailing the underestimation rates of intraductal breast lesions diagnosed by US-VAB and cure rates for PND post-VAB excision were selected. Statistical analysis comprised a random effects proportion meta-analysis. Results: In this research, 31 studies were deemed eligible: 26 for underestimation and 5 for PND cure rates post-US-VAB. Quantitative synthesis focused on studies reporting data on atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) due to limited availability for other pathologies. The pooled underestimation rate for ADH was 6.14% (95% CI: 1.59%-12.43%). The pooled underestimation rate for DCIS was 13.26% (95% CI: 6.69%-21.08%). PND's pooled cure rate post-US-VAB was 93.32% (95% CI: 82.34%-99.70%). Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis show that US-VAB delivers low ADH underestimation rates, moderate DCIS underestimation rates, and acceptable PND cure rates in breast intraductal lesions.

Underestimation of Breast Cancer Based on Ultrasound Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Assessment of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: A Retrospective Study of 296 Lesions

Background: Ultrasound Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classification may underestimate ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Currently, there is a lack of research on ultrasound BI-RADS underestimating DCIS. Objectives: To improve the diagnosis of DCIS, this study aimed to investigate factors associated with the underestimation of DCIS, based on ultrasound BI-RADS assessments. Patients and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, consecutive patients with breast ultrasound BI-RADS classification and biopsy results were retrospectively examined. DCIS was found in the pathology reports of all patients. DCIS cases classified as BI-RADS 4A or lower were considered as underestimations of DCIS, while DCIS cases classified as BI-RADS 4B or higher were considered as non-underestimation of DCIS. The demographics, clinical manifestations, features of breast images, BI-RADS classification, and pathological results of the two groups were compared to explore possible associated factors. A stepwise logistic regression analysis was also carried out based on the significance of factors associated with the underestimation of DCIS according to the BI-RADS assessment. Results: Between January 2015 and May 2017, a total of 296 breast DCIS lesions were diagnosed in 294 female patients. Overall, 65 lesions (22.0%) were underestimated DCIS, and 231 lesions (78.0%) were non-underestimated DCIS; no significant differences were found between their clinical presentations. The univariate analysis showed that the age of the patients, presence of microinvasions, maximum lesion diameter, shape, margin, orientation, echo pattern, posterior acoustic features, ultrasound pattern, and vascularity of lesions were possibly associated factors, which could lead to the underestimation of DCIS. The logistic regression analysis showed that age above 50 years, maximum lesion diameter < 10 mm, lack of microinvasion, and circumscribed margins were associated with the underestimation of DCIS. Conclusion: In this study, 22% of DCIS lesions was underestimated by the BI-RADS assessment. The patient’s age, maximum lesion diameter, microinvasion, and lesion margin were associated with the underestimation of DCIS.

Ductal carcinoma in situ: a risk prediction model for the underestimation of invasive breast cancer

Patients with a biopsy diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) may be diagnosed with invasive breast cancer after excision. We evaluated the preoperative clinical and imaging predictors of DCIS that were associated with an upgrade to invasive carcinoma on final pathology and also compared the diagnostic performance of various statistical models. We reviewed the medical records; including mammography, ultrasound (US), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings; of 644 patients who were preoperatively diagnosed with DCIS and who underwent surgery between January 2012 and September 2018. Logistic regression and three machine learning methods were applied to predict DCIS underestimation. Among 644 DCIS biopsies, 161 (25%) underestimated invasive breast cancers. In multivariable analysis, suspicious axillary lymph nodes (LNs) on US (odds ratio [OR], 12.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.94–29.95; P < 0.001) and high nuclear grade (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.24–2.91; P = 0.003) were associated with underestimation. Cases with biopsy performed using vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.27–0.65; P < 0.001) and lesion size <2 cm on mammography (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.22–0.90; P = 0.021) and MRI (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09–0.94; P = 0.037) were less likely to be upgraded. No significant differences in performance were observed between logistic regression and machine learning models. Our results suggest that biopsy device, high nuclear grade, presence of suspicious axillary LN on US, and lesion size on mammography or MRI were independent predictors of DCIS underestimation.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Breast Biopsy in Korea: A 10-Year Follow-Up Experience.

PurposeTo evaluate the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided breast biopsy.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of 111 consecutive patients referred for MRI-guided breast biopsy after mammography and breast ultrasound between May 2009 and April 2019. After excluding 37 patients without follow-up images (> 2 years), 74 patients (74 lesions) were finally included. We reviewed the histologic results of MRI-guided biopsy and subsequent surgery, post-biopsy management, and breast cancer development during follow-up. We investigated the false-negative rate, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) underestimation, atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) underestimation rate, and technical failure rate of MRI-guided biopsy.ResultsAmong 74 scheduled MRI-guided biopsies, six were canceled because biopsy was deemed unnecessary, while three failed due to technical difficulties (technical failure rate: 3/68, 4.4%). MRI-guided biopsy was performed in 65 patients, of which 18 patients were diagnosed with malignant lesions, 46 with benign lesions, and one with ADH bordering on DCIS. Subsequent surgery (n = 27) showed DCIS underestimation in three cases (3/7, 43%), ADH underestimation in two cases (1/2, 50%), as well as seven concordant benign and 11 concordant malignant lesions. The overall false-negative rate was 4.3% (2/46). Thirty-eight out of 48 benign lesions were followed-up (median period, 5.8 years; interquartile range, 4.1 years) without subsequent surgery. Thirty-seven concordant benign lesions were stable (n = 27) or disappeared (n = 10); however, the size of one discordant benign lesion increased on follow-up MRI and it was diagnosed as DCIS after 1 year.ConclusionMRI-guided biopsy is an accurate method for exclusion of malignancy with a very low false-negative rate.

Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Underestimation of Microcalcifications Only by Stereotactic Vacuum-Assisted Breast Biopsy: A New Predictor of Specimens without Microcalcifications.

The mammographic appearance of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is mostly observed as microcalcifications. Although stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VABB) is a reliable alternative to surgical biopsy for suspicious microcalcifications, underestimation of VABB-proven DCIS is inevitable in clinical practice. We therefore retrospectively analyzed the variables in the prediction of DCIS underestimation manifesting as microcalcifications only proved by stereotactic VABB. In 1147 consecutive VABB on microcalcification-only lesions from 2010 to 2016, patients diagnosed with DCIS were selected to evaluate the underestimation rate. The analyzed variables included clinical characteristics, mammographic features, VABB procedure, and biomarkers. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used, and a p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Of the 131 VABB-proven DCIS, 108 cases were diagnosed with DCIS and 23 were upgraded to invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) after subsequent surgery. The small extent of microcalcification, grouped microcalcifications distribution, nearly complete microcalcification removal, and non-calcified specimens without DCIS were low for DCIS underestimation. Among them, the results of non-calcified specimens with or without DICS were the only statistically significant variables by multivariate logistic regression. These results indicate that the histology of non-calcified specimens was highly predictive of DCIS underestimation. Specimens without DCIS had a low upgrade rate to IDC.

Preoperative breast MRI in management of patients with needle biopsy-proven ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)

BackgroundIn 20–25% of patients with biopsy-proven DCIS underestimation occurs. Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is offered to patients with biopsy-proven ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and a high risk of occult invasive cancer. However, assessment of high risk is controversial. We aimed to improve selection of patients for SLNB with preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MethodsIn this prospective observational study, MRI was offered to all subsequent patients with a biopsy-proven DCIS admitted to a large Dutch teaching hospital between April 2012 and March 2017. MRI images were analysed for signs of invasive cancer and the results were compared with the pathologic results after surgical treatment. The diagnostic accuracy of additional MRI in detecting occult invasive cancer was determined. ResultsOf 211 patients eligible for additional MRI analysis, 149 underwent breast MRI. The majority (67%) received breast-conserving therapy, and the underestimation rate was 20%. Subsequent to MRI analysis, 20 additional invasive diagnostic procedures were performed. Occult invasive cancer was suspected on MRI in 46 patients (31%) and was confirmed in 18 (12%). In this study, breast MRI had a sensitivity of 67%, a specificity of 77%, and a true negative rate of 91%. ConclusionPreoperative breast MRI cannot reliably predict the presence of invasive cancer in patients with biopsy proven DCIS. Therefore, it cannot be used to in the selection of patients for a SLNB.

Development of a Model to Predict Invasiveness in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Diagnosed by Percutaneous Biopsy—Original Study and Critical Evaluation of the Literature

BackgroundApproximately 30% of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) cases have an invasive component discovered on the final analysis that could affect surgical management. The aims of the present study were to determine the risk factors associated with the underestimation of DCIS and to develop a model to predict the probability of invasiveness. Materials and MethodsA retrospective analysis was performed on the data for all patients with a diagnosis of DCIS found by percutaneous biopsy from January 2008 to February 2016. Thirteen potential predictors of invasiveness were examined. The statistical analysis of the present study was improved using Nagelkerke’s R2, the area under the receiving operating characteristic (AUC) curve, and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. ResultsOf 354 biopsy specimens deemed to be DCIS on initial biopsy, 100 (28.2%) were recategorized as invasive carcinoma after surgery. On multivariate analysis, the strongest predictors of invasiveness were comedonecrosis, size on mammography, suspected microinvasion, histologic grade, and younger patient age. The model had a good discriminative ability, with an AUC of 0.764. The overall performance of the model was fair, with a Nagelkerke’s R2 of 40.9%. A separate analysis performed on 274 specimens obtained through vacuum-assisted biopsy revealed different variables were associated with underestimation; however, a similar AUC (0.743) and Nagelkerke’s R2 (45.7%) were obtained. ConclusionOur model had the best AUC for predicting DCIS invasiveness reported to date. However, further statistical analysis showed only a fair overall performance. The currently known clinical, radiographic, and pathologic features might be insufficient to identify which patients with DCIS have underestimated disease.

The usefulness of fluorodeoxyglucose-PET/CT for preoperative evaluation of ductal carcinoma in situ.

PurposePET/CT is useful in preoperative evaluation of invasive breast cancer (IBC) to predict axillary metastasis and staging workup. The usefulness is unclear in cases of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) diagnosed at biopsy before surgery, which sometimes is upgraded to IBC after definitive surgery. The aim of this study is to find out the usefulness of PET/CT on DCIS as a preoperative evaluation tool.MethodsWe investigated 102 patients preoperatively diagnosed with DCIS who subsequently underwent definitive surgery between 2010 and 2015. The uptake of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose was graded by visual and semiquantitative methods. We analyzed the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of each patient with clinicopathologic variables. We determined optimal cutoff values for SUVmax by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.ResultsFifteen cases out of 102 cases (14.7%) were upgraded to IBC after surgery. The SUVmax was higher in patients upgraded to IBC (mean: 2.56 vs. 1.36) (P = 0.007). The SUVmax was significantly higher in patients who had symptoms, palpable masses, lesions over 2 cm in size and BI-RAD category 5. Both visual and semiquantitative analysis were significant predictors of IBC underestimation. SUVmax of 2.65 was the theoretical cutoff value in ROC curve analysis in predicting the underestimation of IBC. The underestimation rate was significantly higher in patients with SUVmax >2.65 (P < 0.001), over the moderate enhanced uptake on visual analysis (P < 0.001).ConclusionPET/CT can be used as a complementary evaluation tool to predict the underestimation of DCIS combined with the lesion size, palpable mass, symptomatic lesion, and BI-RAD category.

Underestimation Rate at MR Imaging-guided Vacuum-assisted Breast Biopsy: A Multi-Institutional Retrospective Study of 1509 Breast Biopsies.

Purpose To assess the rate of underestimation of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) at magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy and to explore the imaging, demographic, and histologic characteristics associated with lesion upgrade after surgery. Materials and Methods This retrospective study had institutional review board approval, and the need to obtain informed patient consent was waived. A total of 1509 MR imaging-guided vacuum-assisted biopsy procedures were performed in nine centers. A diagnosis of ADH was obtained after biopsy in 72 cases, and a diagnosis of DCIS was obtained in 118 cases. Pearson χ2 and Fisher tests were used to assess the association between demographic, MR imaging, and biopsy features and lesion upgrade. Univariate statistical analyses were performed, and each significant parameter was entered into a multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results Surgical excision was performed in 66 of the 72 ADH cases and in 117 of 118 DCIS cases. The ADH and DCIS underestimation rates were 25.8% (17 of 66) and 23.1% (27 of 117), respectively. Underestimation was 5.6-fold (odds ratio [OR] = 5.6; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.7, 18.3) and 3.6-fold (OR = 3.6; 95% CI: 1.2, 10) more likely in mass (n = 20 for ADH and n = 20 for DCIS) than in non-mass (n = 46 for ADH and n = 97 for DCIS), compared with nonunderestimation, in ADH and DCIS respectively. At multivariate analysis, the use of a 9- or 10-gauge needle versus a 7- or 8-gauge needle was also an independently associated with underestimation when a diagnosis of ADH was made at MR imaging-guided biopsy. No other parameters were associated with of ADH or DCIS upgrade at surgery. Conclusion The rates of underestimation in ADH and DCIS diagnosed at MR imaging-guided vacuum-assisted biopsy were high, at around 25%, and were significantly associated with the presence of a mass at MR imaging. © RSNA, 2016.

Histological underestimation of a 9-gauge stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy system compared with surgical excision at a tertiary hospital in South Africa

Background: Breast cancer is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Certain lesions encountered on mammography require histological assessment of biopsy samples to identify benign versus malignant disease. Stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (SVAB) is a useful technique, especially for non-palpable microcalcific lesions, and was introduced at our institution in 2011.Objectives: To determine whether the histological underestimation from 9-gauge SVABs performed at our institution is within acceptable limits.Method: In this cross-sectional study, 9-gauge stereotactic biopsy histology results and breast imaging and reporting data system (BI-RADS) findings of 158 lesions (from 153 patients) were analysed and the histological findings compared with surgical excision histology results (54 lesions) to determine histological underestimation (upgrade rates).Results: One out of eight cases of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) was underestimated, yielding a DCIS underestimation rate of 12.5%.Conclusion: The DCIS underestimation obtained from the present study in our institution was on a par with other authors’ findings and was therefore within acceptable limits. Atypical ductal hyperplasia underestimation could not be reliably obtained with the small study population.Keywords: Stereotactic vacuum assisted breast biopsy; histological underestimation; histological upgrade

Rates of presurgical underestimation of breast cancer after standardized assessment of breast calcifications

Purpose: To determine the frequency of histopathological underestimation of breast cancer after vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) in standardized assessment of breast calcifications compared to postsurgical diagnosis. Materials and methods: The retrospective study included acquired data of 506 consecutively examined women, who underwent VAB for the assessment of pure calcifications after standardized digital mammographic and sonographic imaging. 119/506 (24.5 %) women underwent further surgical procedures: 37 women had a surgical diagnostic excision biopsy, 82 women a surgical procedure based on a therapeutic concept. Presurgical results of VAB were compared with the postsurgical histopathological reports. Results: In 91/119 women (76.5 %) the final histology was malignant. The rate of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) was 79.1 % (72/91) and the rate of invasive carcinoma was 20.9 % (19/91). In 9/37 women with diagnostic excision biopsy, the presurgical status of benign or uncertain changed to a postsurgical diagnosis of malignant (24.3 %). In eight cases underestimation included DCIS (21.6 %) and in one case invasive cancer (2.7 %). Seven of the nine underestimated cases (77.8 %) resulted from excision biopsy of atypical epithelial proliferation of ductal type (AEPDT, positive predictive value 30.4 % (7/23)). After surgery due to DCIS in 7/71 women invasive breast cancer was diagnosed (9.9 %). In 11/82 women with oncological surgery, invasive cancer was already diagnosed by VAB. Conclusion: Underestimation of invasive cancer in terms of presurgical DCIS diagnosis can be minimized by the standardized assessment protocol to about 10 %. Underestimation of DCIS is mainly related to presurgical diagnosis of AEPDT. Key points:

Rates of presurgical underestimation of breast cancer after standardized assessment of breast calcifications.

To determine the frequency of histopathological underestimation of breast cancer after vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) in standardized assessment of breast calcifications compared to postsurgical diagnosis. The retrospective study included acquired data of 506 consecutively examined women, who underwent VAB for the assessment of pure calcifications after standardized digital mammographic and sonographic imaging. 119/506 (24.5 %) women underwent further surgical procedures: 37 women had a surgical diagnostic excision biopsy, 82 women a surgical procedure based on a therapeutic concept. Presurgical results of VAB were compared with the postsurgical histopathological reports. In 91/119 women (76.5 %) the final histology was malignant. The rate of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) was 79.1 % (72/91) and the rate of invasive carcinoma was 20.9 % (19/91). In 9/37 women with diagnostic excision biopsy, the presurgical status of benign or uncertain changed to a postsurgical diagnosis of malignant (24.3 %). In eight cases underestimation included DCIS (21.6 %) and in one case invasive cancer (2.7 %). Seven of the nine underestimated cases (77.8 %) resulted from excision biopsy of atypical epithelial proliferation of ductal type (AEPDT, positive predictive value 30.4 % (7/23)). After surgery due to DCIS in 7/71 women invasive breast cancer was diagnosed (9.9 %). In 11/82 women with oncological surgery, invasive cancer was already diagnosed by VAB. Underestimation of invasive cancer in terms of presurgical DCIS diagnosis can be minimized by the standardized assessment protocol to about 10 %. Underestimation of DCIS is mainly related to presurgical diagnosis of AEPDT. • The standardized use of digital mammographic and sonographic imaging prior to vacuum-assisted biopsy is suitable for minimizing underestimation of invasive breast cancer. AEPDT represents a high risk diagnosis for underestimation of DCIS.

Vacuum-assisted stereotactic biopsy for isolated BI-RADS 4 microcalcifications: evaluation with histopathology and midterm follow-up results.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the 10-gauge vacuum-assisted stereotactic biopsy (VASB) of isolated Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 4 microcalcifications, using histology and follow-up results. From January 2011 to June 2013, VASB was performed on 132 lesions, and 66 microcalcification-only lesions of BI-RADS 4 were included into our study. VASB was performed using lateral decubitis stereotaxy for all patients. Pathologic results of VASB and further surgical biopsies were reviewed retrospectively. Patients who were diagnosed to have benign lesions by VASB were referred for follow-up. VASB and surgical histopathology results were compared to determine the underestimation ratios. Fifteen out of 66 lesions from 63 patients (median age, 47 years; range, 34-88 years) were identified as malignant by VASB. Pathological results after surgery revealed three cases of invasive ductal carcinoma among the 12 VASB-diagnosed ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) lesions, for a DCIS underestimation rate of 25%. The atypical ductal hyperplasia underestimation rate was 0% for the three lesions. The follow-up period was at least 10 months, with an average of 22.7 months for all patients and 21.2 months for patients with VASB-diagnosed benign lesions. None of the patients had malignancy during the follow-ups. The false-negative rate was 0% in the follow-up of 48 patients. VASB should be the standard method of choice for BI-RADS 4 microcalcifications. This method obviates the need for a surgical procedure in 73% of BI-RADS 4 microcalcification-only patients.

Ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed using an ultrasound-guided 14-gauge core needle biopsy of breast masses: can underestimation be predicted preoperatively?

Purpose:This study was designed to determine the rate of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)underestimation diagnosed after an ultrasound-guided 14-gauge core needle biopsy (US-14G-CNB) of breast masses and to compare the clinical and imaging characteristics between trueDCIS and underestimated DCIS identified following surgical excision.Methods:Among 3,124 US-14G-CNBs performed for breast masses, 69 lesions in 60 patients were pathologically-determined to be pure DCIS. We classified these patients according to the final pathology after surgical excision as those with invasive ductal carcinoma (underestimated group) and those with DCIS (non-underestimated group). We retrospectively reviewed and compared the clinical and imaging characteristics between the two groups.Results:Of the 69 lesions, 21 were shown after surgery to be invasive carcinomas; the rateof DCIS underestimation was 30.4%. There were no statistically significant differences withrespect to the clinical symptoms, age, lesion size, mammographic findings, and ultrasonographic findings except for the presence of abnormal axillary lymph nodes as detected on ultrasound. The lesions in 2 patients in the non-underestimated group (2/41, 4.9%) and 5 patients in the underestimated group (5/19, 26.3%) were associated with abnormal lymph nodes on axillary ultrasound, and the presence of abnormal axillary lymph nodes on ultrasound was tatistically significant (P=0.016).Conclusion:We found a 30.4% rate of DCIS underestimation in breast masses based on a US-14G-CNB. The presence of abnormal lymph nodes as detected on axillary ultrasound may be useful to preoperatively predict underestimation.

Breast Lesion Excision Sample (BLES Biopsy) Combining Stereotactic Biopsy and Radiofrequency: Is it a Safe and Accurate Procedure in Case of BIRADS 4 and 5 Breast Lesions?

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and safety of breast lesion excision system (BLES) procedure with an Intact system device, under stereotactic and ultrasound guidance. Retrospective data review of 32 breast lesions BI-RADS 4 or 5 underwent Intact procedures, from March 2010 to January 2012. Underestimation rates of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) were evaluated; percentage of complete radiologic and histologic removal of the breast lesion were analyzed, as were the complications due to procedure. Complete radiologic excision of the target lesion was achieved in all masses and 58.6% of calcifications. Lesion size was less than 11 mm (mean size 5.6 mm). Underestimation of ADH and DCIS was 0% and 10%, respectively. Low complication rate was noted: only one hematoma. BLES appears an accurate and safe biopsy system for sampling nonpalpable breast lesions, especially in case of microcalcifications clusters categorized as BI-RADS 4 and 5.

Comparison of the underestimation rate in cases with ductal carcinoma in situ at ultrasound-guided core biopsy: 14-gauge automated core-needle biopsy vs 11-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy

The objective of this study was to compare the underestimation rate of invasive carcinoma cases with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) at percutaneous ultrasound-guided core biopsies of breast lesions between 14-gauge automated core needle biopsy (ACNB) and 11-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB), and analyze the diagnostic advantages and insufficiencies in DCIS between this two methods, and to determine the relationship between the lesion type (masses or microcalcifications on radiological findings) and DCIS underestimation rate. We collected 152 breast lesions which were diagnosed as DCIS by retrospectively reviewing data about ultrasound-guided biopsies of breast lesions (from February 2003 to July 2010). There were 98 lesions in 95 patients by 14-gauge ACNB, and 54 lesions in 52 patients by 11-gauge VAB (The system used in this study called Mammatome, MMT). The clinical and radiological findings were reviewed; meanwhile all the selected patients had histological results of the biopsies and follow-up surgeries which also achieved the reliable pathological results to compare with the biopsy results. The differences between two correlated histological results defined as underestimation, and the histological DCIS underestimation rates were compared between the two groups. According to the radiological characteristics, each group was classified into two subgroups (masses or microcalcifications group), and the differences between subgroups were also analyzed. The DCIS underestimation rate was 45.9% (45/98) for 14-gauge ACNB and 16.6% (9/54) for MMT. According to the lesion type on ultrasonography, DCIS underestimation was 31.0% (26/84) in masses (43.1% using ACNB and 12.1% using MMT; P = 0.003) and 42.6% (29/68) in microcalcifications (48.9% using ACNB and 23.8% using MMT; P = 0.036). The underestimation rate of invasive carcinoma in cases with DCIS at ultrasound-guided core biopsies is significantly higher for ACNB than for MMT. Furthermore, this difference does not alter among the two lesion types presented on ultrasonography. So ultrasound-guided VAB (MMT system) could be an effective and useful method for the diagnosis of DCIS lesions no matter what the lesion type is.

Risk predictors of underestimation and the need for sentinel node biopsy in patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ by preoperative needle biopsy

Diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) by core needle biopsy showed a high rate of underestimation of invasiveness, and performing sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in DCIS patients was controversial. We analyzed 340 DCIS patients who were diagnosed by needle biopsies. Final pathology and clinicopathological features were reviewed. Predictors were accessed using the Chi-square test and a binary logistic regression model. The overall DCIS underestimation rate was 42.6%. The underestimation was significantly related to the palpability, mass or calcification by ultrasonography, grade, suspicious microinvasion, and biopsy method in univariate analysis. In multivariate analysis, palpability, ultrasonographic calcification or mass, suspicious microinvasion, and core needle biopsy were independent predictors of underestimation of invasive cancer. In cases with one or no risk predictors, the underestimation rate was 14.3%, whereas, in those with five predictors, it increased to 90.9%. Among 144 invasive cancer patients who underwent axillary staging, 15.4% had node metastasis. DCIS diagnosed by preoperative needle biopsy has a high probability of underestimation, and 15% of invasive cancer patients have node metastasis. SLNB may be justified in DCIS patients undergoing needle biopsies, and caution should be exercised in omitting SLNB in patients with one or no risk predictors.

Comparison of the underestimation rate in cases with ductal carcinomain situat ultrasound-guided core biopsy: 14-gauge automated core-needle biopsyvs8- or 11-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy

The objective of this study was to compare the underestimation rate of invasive carcinoma in cases with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) at percutaneous ultrasound-guided core biopsies of breast lesions between 14-gauge automated core-needle biopsy (ACNB) and 8- or 11-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB), and to determine the relationship between the lesion type (mass or microcalcification on radiological findings) and the DCIS underestimation rate. We retrospectively reviewed imaging-guided biopsies of breast lesions performed from February 2003 to August 2008. 194 lesions were diagnosed as DCIS at ultrasound-guided core biopsy: 138 lesions in 132 patients by 14-gauge ACNB, and 56 lesions in 56 patients by 8- or 11-gauge VAB. The histological results of the core biopsy samples were correlated with surgical specimens. The clinical and radiological findings were also reviewed. The histological DCIS underestimation rates were compared between the two groups and were analysed for differences according to the clinical and radiological characteristics of the lesions. The DCIS underestimation rate was 47.8% (66/138) for 14-gauge ACNB and 16.1% (9/56) for VAB (p<0.001). According to the lesion type on sonography, DCIS underestimation was 43.4% (63/145) in masses (47.6% using ACNB and 15.8% using VAB; p=0.012) and 24.5% (12/49) in microcalcifications (50.0% using ACNB and 16.2% using VAB; p=0.047). The underestimation rate of invasive carcinoma in cases with DCIS at ultrasound-guided core biopsies was significantly higher for ACNB than for VAB. Furthermore, this difference does not change according to the lesion type on ultrasound. Therefore, ultrasound-guided VAB can be a useful method for the diagnosis of DCIS lesions presented as either mass or microcalcification.

The two faces of autophagy and the pathological underestimation of DCIS

We read with great interest the Opinion article (What is the malignant nature of human ductal carcinoma in situ?Nature Rev. Cancer 11, 68–75 (2011)) by Espina and Liotta1, in which the authors present the current knowledge on potential survival mechanisms of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) cells, propose a novel strategy for killing DCIS cells and introduce an ongoing neoadjuvant therapy trial. However, several important issues related to the anti-autophagy therapy for DCIS need further discussion.

A response to the two faces of autophagy in DCIS

Regarding our recent Opinion article (What is the malignant nature of human ductal carcinoma in situ?Nature Rev. Cancer 11, 68–75 (2011))1 we thank Drs Yu and Shao for their correspondence (The two faces of autophagy and the pathological underestimation of DCIS. Nature Rev. Cancer July 2011 (doi:10.1038/nrc2950-c1))2, which provides interesting discussion points relative to our proposals on autophagy therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)1, 3. Drs Yu and Shao raise three points: that although anti-autophagy therapy can target a survival mechanism used within the hypoxic and nutrient-deprived intraductal microenvironment of DCIS, anti-autophagy therapy may not be desirable for treating invasive breast cancer; that because of the sampling error inherent in core-needle biopsies, patients may be diagnosed with DCIS who have invasive cancer that was missed by the biopsy; and whether chloroquine phosphate can penetrate into the nonvascular interior of the DCIS lesion that is surrounded by the basement membrane.