4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Uncommon high-risk lesions of the breast diagnosed at stereotactic core-needle biopsy: Clinical importance

期刊

RADIOLOGY
卷 216, 期 3, 页码 831-837

出版社

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICA
DOI: 10.1148/radiology.216.3.r00se31831

关键词

breast, biopsy; breast, diseases; breast, radial scar; breast neoplasms, diagnosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To assess the outcome of papillary lesions, radial scars, or lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) diagnosed at stereotactic core-needle biopsy (SCNB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of 1,236 lesions sampled with SCNB yielded 22 papillary lesions, nine radial scars, and five LCIS lesions. Diffuse lesions such as papillomatosis, papillary ductal hyperplasia, papillary ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and atypical lobular hyperplasia were not included. The mammographic findings, associated histologic features, and outcome were assessed for each case. RESULTS: Sixteen papillary lesions were diagnosed as benign at SCNB. Of these, five were benign at excision, and 10 were unremarkable at mammographic followup. At excision of an unusual lesion containing a microscopic papillary lesion, DCIS was found. Three of four papillary lesions suspicious at SCNB proved to be papillary carcinomas; the fourth had no residual carcinoma at excision. Eight of nine radial scars were excised, which revealed atypical hyperplasia in four scars but no malignancies. One LCIS lesion was found at excision to contain DCIS. CONCLUSION: Benign or malignant papillary lesions were accurately diagnosed with SCNB in the majority of cases. Cases diagnosed as suspicious for malignancy or with atypia or unusual associated histologic findings should be excised. No malignancies were found at excision of radial scars diagnosed at SCNB. Surgical removal of these lesions following SCNB may not be routinely necessary. DCIS was found in one lesion diagnosed as LCIS at SCNB, which suggests that removal of these lesions may be prudent.

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