4.6 Article

Radial scar of the breast: Is it possible to avoid surgery?

Journal

EJSO
Volume 43, Issue 7, Pages 1265-1272

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2017.01.238

Keywords

Radial scar; Complex sclerosing lesion; Histologic upgrade; Vacuum assisted biopsy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Breast radial scar (RS) management remains controversial. The need for surgical excision is supported by the concern of an associated high-grade lesion missed in the biopsy. The aim of this study was to assess histologic upgrade rate after a percutaneous biopsy, to determine if vacuum assisted biopsy prevents the need for subsequent RS surgical resection and to evaluate the upgrade risk factors. Patients and methods: This was a uni-institutional retrospective study of consecutive patients with RS histologically diagnosed from January 2010 to December 2015. Results: A total of 113 cases of RS were diagnosed. We verify that there was a histologic upgrade in 22 (19.5%) cases. The upgrade risk factors were the type of biopsy performed, the presence of atypia, the presence of calcifications and the number of fragments obtained in the biopsy (p < 0.05). The biopsy type was vacuum assisted in 25 (22.1%). The upgrade rate in the vacuum assisted biopsy group was 4.0%, whereas in the standard core needle biopsy group was 23,9% (p = 0.041). Discussion and conclusion: We demonstrated that the risk of upgrade after a RS diagnosis depends on the type of biopsy performed, the presence of atypia, the presence of calcifications and the number of fragments obtained. When a standard core biopsy is performed the risk of upgrade and malignancy is not negligible, and surgery is indicated. When the biopsy is vacuum assisted, the risk of upgrade and malignancy is significantly decreased and so the indication for excisional biopsy seems not to be so imperative. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd, BASO. - The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available