4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Papillary lesions of the breast: Evaluation with stereotactic directional vacuum-assisted biopsy

期刊

RADIOLOGY
卷 221, 期 3, 页码 650-655

出版社

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICA
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2213010005

关键词

breast, biopsy; breast neoplasms, diagnosis; papilloma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To evaluate the use of stereotactic directional vacuum-assisted biopsy (SDVAB) in diagnosing and managing papillary lesions of the breast. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed the mammographic and histopathologic findings of 26 cases in which papillary lesions were diagnosed at SDVAB. In all cases, subsequent surgical excision (n = 20) or long-term imaging follow-up (n = 6) was performed and correlated with findings at SDVAB. RESULTS: SDVAB of 26 lesions yielded tissue that was classified as benign in 12, atypical in six, and malignant in eight. Of the 12 lesions that were diagnosed as histologically benign at SDVAB, six were surgically excised. Of these six lesions, five yielded benign correlative results. The sixth lesion was thought to be discordant with the imaging findings, and was surgically excised and determined to be malignant. Of the six benign lesions that were not surgically sampled for biopsy, five decreased in size and one was not seen at radiographic follow-up. Of the six lesions diagnosed as atypical at SDVAB that were surgically excised, one was benign and five were atypical. None proved to be malignant. Of the eight lesions diagnosed as malignant at SDVAB, surgical excision demonstrated ductal carcinoma in situ in all eight; two also had foci of invasive carcinoma. CONCLUSION: Benign and malignant papillary lesions of the breast can be reliably diagnosed at SDVAB when the SDVAB results correlate with the imaging findings. However, the extent of malignant papillary disease may be underestimated at SDVAB; in our study, invasive carcinoma was later discovered in 25% of patients with this diagnosis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据