AJR Women's Imaging Online
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Reynolds, H. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Reynolds, H. E.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
AJR 2000; 174:1245-1250
© American Roentgen Ray Society


Review

Core Needle Biopsy of Challenging Benign Breast Conditions

A Comprehensive Literature Review

Handel E. Reynolds1

1 Department of Radiology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indiana University Hospital, Rm. 0279, 550 N. University Blvd., Indianapolis, IN 46202

Received August 23, 1999; accepted after revision October 4, 1999.

 
Address correspondence to H. E. Reynolds.


Introduction
Top
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
The proper treatment of patients who have certain benign diagnoses made at percutaneous core needle breast biopsy is sometimes controversial, especially for less commonly encountered abnormalities. The core needle breast biopsy medical literature comprises mainly small single-institution retrospective reviews that typically contain insufficient numbers of these uncommon entities to provide meaningful guidance to the practicing interventional breast radiologist. Thus, current treatment strategies after biopsy vary from institution to institution and often have evolved from the individual radiologist's anecdotal experience. Therefore, a comprehensive review of the English language core needle breast biopsy medical literature was undertaken. The purpose was to develop a more complete picture of the accuracy of the core needle biopsy technique in making certain benign diagnoses.


Materials and Methods
Top
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
A MEDLINE [1] search was executed on February 4, 1999. The search strategy consisted of subject terms "stereotactic breast biopsy" and "core breast biopsy" and included the English language literature from 1966 to the search date (search 1). The output consisted of 472 citations. A second search (search 2) using the terms "vacuum-assisted biopsy" and "breast" for the same period was then performed. This search resulted in 14 citations that were all found among the 472 citations of search 1.

One hundred seventy-three of the 472 titles composing search 1 were eliminated because of lack of relevance to the subject of breast core needle or vacuum-assisted biopsy. Thirty-six of these 173 were fine-needle aspiration papers. Of the remaining 299 citations, 293 articles were obtained and reviewed for relevance. Six articles could not be obtained at this institution's medical library or via interlibrary loan. Each of the remaining 293 articles was meticulously reviewed for the presence of core needle and correlative surgical excisional biopsy data on any of the following seven benign breast conditions: atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), atypical lobular hyperplasia, radial scar, lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS), benign papillary lesions, benign phyllodes tumor, and pseudoangiomatous stromal hyperplasia. Two hundred twenty-six articles that did not contain specific correlated information on these conditions were deemed irrelevant. The remaining 67 [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68] form the basis of this report.

Care was taken to avoid data duplication. One multiinstitutional report [23] included previously published data on ADH from three other institutions [34,41,60]. In this case, only the data in the multi-institutional paper were included in the analysis. Several reports from a particular institution were built on previously published data from the same institution. Therefore, the reporting periods were carefully analyzed to determine if any overlap existed. If the results in the earlier reports were included in the later reports, only the later results were included in the analysis (Table 1). In one case, an earlier report [43] contained more references to the lesion of interest (papilloma) than a later report from the same institution [16] (Table 1). Therefore, the data from the earlier report were used.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 1 Cases of Overlapping Data

 

Diseases reported as "atypical ductal hyperplasia" (n = 434), "atypical hyperplasia" (n = 132), "atypia" (n = 45), "atypical ductal hyperplasia versus atypical lobular hyperplasia" (n = 12), "atypical ductal hyperplasia or lobular carcinoma in situ" reported together (one paper in which the authors did not separate atypical ductal hyperplasia cases from LCIS cases) (n = 6), and "fibroadenoma with atypical ductal hyperplasia" (n = 1) were grouped together as ADH (n = 630) for the purposes of this analysis.

"Papilloma" (n = 15) or "benign papillary lesion" (n = 9) were grouped together as "low-suspicion papillary lesions" (n = 24). "Papillomatosis" (n =2), "papillary lesion with atypical ductal hyperplasia" (n = 10), and "papilloma with atypia" (n = 1) were grouped together as "high-suspicion papillary lesions" (n = 13). Lesions reported as "sclerosing papilloma" (n = 2) were considered separately.

"Phyllodes tumor" (n = 4) and "cellular fibroadenoma versus phyllodes tumor" (n = 5) were grouped together as "phyllodes tumor" (n = 9).

"Atypical ductal hyperplasia versus ductal carcinoma in situ" (n = 4), "atypical ductal hyperplasia versus cribriform carcinoma" (n = 1), "atypical lobular hyperplasia with possible invasive lobular carcinoma" (n = 1), "mass with atypical features" (n = 7), and "calcifications with atypical features" (n = 6) were excluded from this analysis.


Results
Top
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
ADH
Core needle biopsies of 18,542 breast lesions from 1980 to 1998 were reported in these articles. Among these 18,542 biopsies, 630 (3.4%) ADH lesions were identified. Of the 579 with surgical correlation, malignancy was found in 214 (37%) (Table 2), including eight lesions that underwent clinical and mammographic follow-up ranging from 24 to 31 months. No malignancies were discovered in the follow-up group. In 161 of the 214 malignant lesions, the histology of the malignant disease was specified as follows: 122 ductal carcinoma in situ lesions (76%), 38 invasive ductal carcinomas (24%), and one lesion (0.6%) reported simply as invasive.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 2 Summary of Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia Results

 

Of the 630 ADH lesions, 403 were biopsied with an automated spring-loaded gun and a 14-gauge needle using either sonography or stereotaxis for guidance. Of the 375 with surgical correlation, malignancy was discovered in 155 (41%). The eight patients who were followed up for 24-31 months without malignancy diagnoses were a part of this group. Including them makes the malignancy rate for this biopsy method 155 (40%) of 383. One hundred twelve of the 630 ADH lesions were biopsied with a 14- or 11-gauge directional vacuum-assisted device. Of the 98 with surgical correlation, malignancy was found in 15 (15%). Thirty-six ADH lesions were biopsied with either a 14-gauge automated gun or a 14-gauge vacuum-assisted device. In the 32 of these lesions with surgical correlation, malignancy was discovered in 17 (53%). Fifteen ADH lesions were biopsied with a spring-loaded automated gun and a 14- or 15-gauge needle. At surgery, four (27%) of 15 lesions revealed malignancy. Twenty-three ADH lesions were biopsied with a spring-loaded automated gun and an 18- or 20-gauge needle. All 23 lesions had surgical correlation, and malignancy was found in 13 (57%). Nine ADH lesions were biopsied with a 15-gauge nonautomatic system with stereotactic guidance; six (67%) of nine lesions revealed malignancy at surgery. Eighteen ADH lesions were palpable abnormalities biopsied with an 18-gauge nonautomatic core needle system with no imaging guidance. All were surgically excised and one malignancy (5.5%) was found. Fourteen ADH lesions were biopsied with devices not specified by the authors. Of the nine lesions with surgical correlation, malignancy was found in three (33%).

LCIS and Atypical Lobular Hyperplasia
LCIS was reported in four (0.02%) of 18,542 needle biopsies. After all four were excised, malignancy was found in two lesions (50%). One lesion was identified as ductal carcinoma in situ; the other was identified as invasive ductal carcinoma. Ten atypical lobular hyperplasia lesions (0.05%) were reported among the 18,542 biopsies. Of the nine lesions with surgical correlation, an invasive lobular carcinoma was found in one (11%).

Papillary Lesions
Among the 18,542 biopsies, 29 papillary lesions (0.16%) were reported. Among these 29 lesions were 24 low-suspicion papillary lesions, 13 high-suspicion papillary lesions, and two sclerosing papillomas. Of the 20 low-suspicion papillary lesions with surgical correlation, no malignancies were identified. In addition, three of the 24 low-suspicion papillary lesions had mammographic follow-up for at least 36 months with no malignancies discovered for a malignancy rate of 0 of 23. All 13 high-suspicion papillary lesions were surgically excised, revealing malignancy in five lesions (38%). Four of the malignancies were diagnosed as ductal carcinoma in situ; the fifth malignancy was diagnosed as a tubular carcinoma. Both of the sclerosing papillomas were excised. Ductal carcinoma in situ was discovered in one lesion (50%).

Phyllodes Tumor
Nine benign phyllodes tumors (0.05%) were reported among the 18,542 needle biopsies. Of the seven lesions with surgical correlation, one (14%) was malignant (malignant phyllodes tumor).

Radial Scar
Radial scar lesions were reported in 18 (0.1%) of 18,542 needle biopsies. Of the 15 lesions surgically excised, ductal carcinoma in situ was discovered in one (6.7%). This lesion was biopsied with a spring-loaded automated gun and a 14-gauge core needle.

Pseudoangiomatous Stromal Hyperplasia
Nine cases (0.05%) of pseudoangiomatous stromal hyperplasia were reported among the 18,542 needle biopsies. Of six with surgical correlation, no malignancies were found. Two lesions had imaging follow-up at 6 months that showed stability.


Discussion
Top
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
ADH
The fundamental definition of ductal epithelial hyperplasia is an increase in the number of cells superior to the basement membrane beyond the usual two. "Usual" or "ordinary" ductal hyperplasia is the most common variety; it is characterized by proliferation of a heterogeneous population of epithelial and myoepithelial cells in a focal or diffuse manner. The cells lack cytologic atypia. ADH is a borderline lesion between usual ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ. Qualitatively, this lesion fulfills some, but not all, of the cytologic and pattern criteria for ductal carcinoma in situ [69,70]. Quantitatively, ADH may also be diagnosed when all criteria for ductal carcinoma in situ are met but the lesion does not completely involve at least two duct spaces [70] or does not meet a 2-mm size threshold [71].

Early in the evolution of breast core needle biopsy, the diagnosis of ADH by core needle biopsy was found to be unreliable. The initial technique of using a 14-gauge needle with an automated spring-activated biopsy gun resulted in a 50% rate of disease underestimation [57,60] (rate at which malignancy is found when a core needle biopsy-diagnosed ADH lesion is surgically excised). Disease underestimation is likely related to sampling error, which in turn is related to the volume of tissue removed at biopsy. With the advent of the vacuum-assisted biopsy device, now widely in use, much larger volumes of tissue are being removed at needle biopsy than was previously possible. With the 14-gauge needle and automated-gun technique, individual specimens weigh, on average, around 17 mg compared with 36 mg for the 14-gauge vacuum-assisted device and 94 mg for the 11-gauge vacuum-assisted device [72]. In this literature review, use of the 14-gauge needle and automated-gun technique resulted in an underestimation rate of 41% compared with a rate of 15% when the vacuum-assisted technique was used with either 14- or 11-gauge probes. Though this figure represents a major technical improvement, the rate is unacceptably high, and it is recommended that patients with ADH diagnosed percutaneously, regardless of the technique, undergo surgical excision.

LCIS and Atypical Lobular Hyperplasia
Foote and Stewart [73] first recognized LCIS as a distinct entity in 1941. They described a lesion consisting of a proliferation of large cells with proportionally large clear nuclei in lobules that are normal in size or even slightly small. LCIS is a benign highrisk marker that is frequently bilateral. Affected patients have a 30% lifetime risk of developing invasive carcinoma of either breast. The lesion has no clinical or mammographic manifestations and is essentially incidentally diagnosed after biopsy for some other reason. An important feature of LCIS mentioned in Foote and Stewart's report is its tendency to coexist with other forms of carcinoma, including comedocarcinoma, ordinary invasive ductal carcinoma, and tubular carcinoma.

Because LCIS typically has no mammographic manifestations, it is rarely encountered as the sole histologic diagnosis after core needle breast biopsy. In this literature review, four cases were identified, two (50%) of which were found to harbor malignancy at excision. Both carcinomas were of ductal origin. There are two reasons it might be reasonable to recommend surgical excision after a core needle biopsy yielding LCIS alone (no other disorders seen). First, LCIS is usually mammographically occult. Thus, the mammographic lesion that prompted the biopsy may correctly still be considered undiagnosed. LCIS was an incidental finding in the vicinity of the mammographic lesion. The second reason is that breast malignancy, whether of ductal or lobular origin, is frequently found to have areas of LCIS nearby. Thus, a core needle biopsy diagnosis of LCIS alone may represent a sampling-error problem similar to that seen with ADH. Clearly, insufficient data in the literature exist for firm treatment recommendations at this time.

Likewise, experts differ on what precise criteria should be used to distinguish atypical lobular hyperplasia from LCIS. Again qualitatively when some, but not all, of the criteria for LCIS are present, atypical lobular hyperplasia is usually diagnosed. However, if all the criteria for LCIS are present, atypical lobular hyperplasia may also be diagnosed if less than one half [74] or less than three fourths [75] of the acini in a terminal ductal lobular unit are involved. Atypical lobular hyperplasia is a much less common condition than ADH. In this literature review, 10 cases of atypical lobular hyperplasia were identified. Of the nine with surgical correlation, one lesion (11%), an invasive lobular carcinoma, was malignant. As with ADH, disease underestimation is a risk with atypical lobular hyperplasia.

Papillary Lesions
There are several varieties of papillary lesions of the breast. The most common is the solitary central intraductal papilloma, which is a benign tumor arising from the epithelium of a major duct in the subareolar region. It contains a well-defined fibrovascular core and the usual two populations of cells, although the myoepithelium is inconsistent [76]. These lesions frequently undergo hemorrhagic infarction, resulting in a bloody nipple discharge. Peripheral papillomas originate in a terminal ductal lobular unit and extend along small ducts [77]. They are often multiple and associated with various degrees of hyperplasia of the usual and atypical varieties. Thus, these papillomas are associated with an increased risk of subsequent malignancy, whereas the central papillomas are not. Page and Anderson [78] have stated that any risk of malignancy associated with these lesions "can be assessed from the degree of atypical pattern or cytology present within [them]." Sclerosing papillomas are benign papillary lesions that have undergone extensive sclerosis and hyalinization [79]. Microscopically, they can mimic radial scar lesions or even invasive carcinoma [79]. Finally, the term "papillomatosis" deserves some attention. Different experts unfortunately define this term in different ways. Tavassoli [80] states that papillomatosis is "also referred to as multiple papillomas," whereas Page and Anderson [81] and Rosen [82] indicate that the term is commonly used by pathologists interchangeably with ductal hyperplasia, even though this usage is discouraged. Therefore, in common usage, the term "papillomatosis" may not refer to a papillary lesion at all but rather to an entity along the spectrum of ductal hyperplasia.

In this literature review, 24 papillomas or benign papillary lesions were identified. No malignancies were discovered among 20 papillomas with surgical correlation or among the three with mammographic follow-up for at least 3 years. Thus, excision can be avoided with papillomas diagnosed at core needle biopsy if no worrisome histologic features are present. If the papillary lesion displays cytologic atypia or frank ADH or if the diagnosis is papillomatosis, disease underestimation risk is high. In this literature review, five (38%) of 13 such lesions were found to harbor malignancy at surgical excision. Two cases of sclerosing papilloma were identified, one of which contained ductal carcinoma in situ at excision.

Phyllodes Tumor
Phyllodes tumor, also known as cystosarcoma phyllodes, is a fibroepithelial tumor related to fibroadenoma. These tumors typically present as large palpable masses and are most common in the fifth decade of life. They are commonly classified histologically as benign, low grade (or borderline), or malignant [83]. Malignant phyllodes tumors display malignant cytologic features in the stroma. Page and Anderson [84] stated, "...recognition of malignancy depends on thoroughly sampling...[these] lesions." The core needle biopsy may thus be susceptible to sampling error in the assessment of these lesions. Of the seven "benign" phyllodes tumors with surgical correlation identified in this review, one was malignant (malignant phyllodes).

Radial Scar
Radial scar (radial sclerosing lesion) is an uncommon but important disorder. The importance of this lesion is twofold. First, having a spiculated appearance, it is a known mimicker of carcinoma on mammography. Furthermore, on gross pathologic inspection, a spiculated lesion with a firm fibrous center that is frequently puckered is the usual pattern that may be impossible to distinguish from carcinoma [85]. Second, it has a known association with carcinoma. In a review of 126 radial scar lesions, Sloane and Mayers [86] found carcinoma in 22 of the lesions (17%). Sloane and Mayers included three cases of LCIS with their carcinoma patients. Excluding these three cases, they found ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive carcinoma in 19 lesions (15%). Curiously, this relationship was dependent on the size of the lesion, the age of the patient, and the method by which the radial scar was detected. No malignancies were detected in radial scars of less than 6 mm in diameter, and similarly, no malignancies were detected in patients younger than 40 years old. The incidence of carcinoma in radial scars was 43% detected as a mammographic abnormality, 22% detected as a palpable mass, and 1.2% detected as an incidental finding at histology after biopsy for some other condition.

For this reason, it has generally been advised that radial scar lesions diagnosed at core needle biopsy be excised. In fact, if the mammographic appearance of the abnormality indicates that radial scar is likely, excision may be a more appropriate approach than percutaneous biopsy. In this review, 18 radial scar lesions were identified. Of the 15 lesions that were surgically excised, malignancy (ductal carcinoma in situ) was discovered in one (6.7%).

Pseudoangiomatous Stromal Hyperplasia
Pseudoangiomatous stromal hyperplasia is an uncommon tumor that is significant because it can be mistaken for angiosarcoma at histology [87,88]. Only nine core needle biopsy-diagnosed cases of pseudoangiomatous stromal hyperplasia were identified. In six with surgical correlation, no malignancies were discovered.

Study Limitations
This literature review has several weaknesses. First, the technique of breast core needle biopsy has evolved significantly since its inception. Thus, combining results from studies published over an 18-year period necessarily involves pooling data from studies in which the biopsies were performed with different techniques. In many reports, the biopsy technique even varied over the course of the reporting period. Thus, what has been done here, though necessary, is somewhat like combining apples and oranges to make more apples or more oranges. This inconsistency may limit the validity of these results. A second limitation is that in the core needle biopsy literature, histologic results have not been reported in a standardized fashion. For example, in the case of atypical hyperplasia, among other designations, lesions have been reported as atypia, atypical hyperplasia, ADH, and ADH versus atypical lobular hyperplasia. An attempt was made to organize this varied terminology so that results of similar histologic entities could be compared; however, the method used is clearly imperfect and subject to criticism. A third limitation is the issue of data duplication. A dedicated effort was made to avoid this pitfall; however, it was not always possible to identify overlapping data in reviewing multiple reports from the same institution, especially if the focus of each report was different.

Conclusion
Despite these weaknesses, these results give a more complete picture of the reliability of breast core needle biopsy in making certain uncommon benign diagnoses. However, for some of these conditions insufficient data were found to give clear guidance in patient treatment after biopsy. Given current knowledge, I recommend surgical excision after a core needle biopsy diagnosis of ADH, atypical lobular hyperplasia, LCIS, high-suspicion papillary lesion, sclerosing papilloma, radial scar, or phyllodes tumor. Low-suspicion papillary lesions and pseudoangiomatous stromal hyperplasia may be safely observed. Additional large multiinstitutional studies are urgently needed to accumulate sufficient data on these uncommon benign entities.


References
Top
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 

  1. MEDLINE [database online]. Bethesda, MD: National Library of Medicine, 1999. Accessed February 4, 1999
  2. Liberman L, Bracero N, Vuolo MA, et al. Percutaneous large-core biopsy of papillary breast lesions. AJR 1999;172:331 -337[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Zannis VJ, Aliano KM. The evolving practice pattern of the breast surgeon with the disappearance of open biopsy for nonpalpable lesions. Am J Surg 1998;176:525 -528[Medline]
  4. Gray RE, Benson GW, Lustig DD. Stereotactic breast biopsy: experience in a community setting. J Miss State Med Assoc 1999;40:3 -7[Medline]
  5. Doyle AJ, King AR, Miller MV, Collins JP. Implementation of image-guided large-core needle biopsy of the breast on a limited budget. Australas Radiol 1998;42:199 -203[Medline]
  6. Liberman L, Feng TL, Dershaw DD, Morris EA, Abramson AF. US-guided core breast biopsy: use and cost-effectiveness. Radiology 1998;208:717 -723[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Ioffe OB, Berg WA, Silverberg SG, Kumar D. Mammographic-histopathologic correlation of large-core needle biopsies of the breast. Mod Pathol 1998;11:721 -727[Medline]
  8. Bolivar AV, Garcia EO, Ayensa FG. Stereotaxic core needle aspiration biopsy with multiple passes in non-palpable breast lesions. Acta Radiol 1998;39:389 -394[Medline]
  9. Liberman L, Smolkin JH, Dershaw DD, Morris EA, Abramson AF, Rosen PP. Calcification retrieval at stereotactic, 11-gauge, directional, vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Radiology 1998;208:251 -260[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Blue J, Harman J. Experience of the upright breast stereotactic core biopsy method and histologic correlation with surgical biopsy. N Z Med J 1998;111:191 -192[Medline]
  11. Fuhrman GM, Cederbom GJ, Bolton JS, et al. Image-guided core-needle breast biopsy is an accurate technique to evaluate patients with nonpalpable imaging abnormalities. Ann Surg 1998;227:932 -939[Medline]
  12. Lin PH, Clyde JC, Bates DM, Garcia JM, Matsumoto GH, Girvin GW. Accuracy of stereotactic core-needle breast biopsy in atypical ductal hyperplasia. Am J Surg 1998;175:380 -382[Medline]
  13. Seoudi H, Mortier J, Basile R, Curletti E. Stereotactic core needle biopsy of non-palpable breast lesions: initial experience with a promising new technique. Arch Surg 1998;133:366 -372[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Schaumloffel U, Viehweg P, Hofer H, Buchmann J, Lampe D. Minimally invasive stereotaxic vacuum core breast biopsy. Eur Radiol 1998;8:377 -385[Medline]
  15. Brown TA, Wall JW, Christensen ED, et al. Atypical hyperplasia in the era of stereotactic core needle biopsy. J Surg Oncol 1998;67:168 -173[Medline]
  16. Meyer JE, Smith DN, Lester SC, et al. Large-needle core biopsy: nonmalignant breast abnormalities evaluated with surgical excision or repeat core biopsy. Radiology 1998;206:717 -720[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Roe SM, Mathews JA, Burns RP, Sumida MP, Craft P, Greer MS. Stereotactic and ultrasound core needle breast biopsy performed by surgeons. Am J Surg 1997;174:699 -704[Medline]
  18. Pitre B, Baron PL, Baron LF, O'Brien PH, Cole DJ. Stereotactic core biopsy of the breast: results of one-year follow-up of 101 patients. Am Surg 1997;63:1124 -1127[Medline]
  19. Liberman L, Dershaw DD, Morris EA, Abramson AF, Thornton CM, Rosen PP. Clip placement after stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Radiology 1997;205:417 -422[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Park ST, Galbo C, Ghosh B. Stereotactic breast biopsy as an alternative to excisional biopsy. World J Surg 1997;21:794 -798[Medline]
  21. Stolier AJ. Stereotactic breast biopsy: a surgical series. J Am Coll Surg 1997;185:224 -228[Medline]
  22. Acheson MB, Patton RG, Howisey RL, Lane RF, Morgan A. Histologic correlation of image-guided core biopsy with excisional biopsy of non-palpable breast lesions. Arch Surg 1997;132:815 -821[Abstract]
  23. Jackman RJ, Burbank F, Parker SH, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at stereotactic breast biopsy: improved reliability with 14-gauge, directional, vacuum-assisted biopsy. Radiology 1997;204:485 -488[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Moore MM, Hargett CW, Hanks JB, et al. Association of breast cancer with the finding of atypical hyperplasia at core breast biopsy. Ann Surg 1997;225:726 -733[Medline]
  25. Witmer DR, Dickson-Witmer D, Teixido R. Initial 100 consecutive stereotactic core breast biopsies in a private breast center setting. Del Med J 1997;69:297 -301[Medline]
  26. Hirst C, Davis N. Core biopsy for microcalcifications in the breast. Aust N Z J Surg 1997;67:320 -324[Medline]
  27. Bauer RL, Sung J, Eckhert KH, Koul A, Castillo N, Nemoto T. Comparison of histologic diagnosis between stereotactic core needle biopsy and open surgical biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol 1997;4:316 -320[Abstract]
  28. Gadzala D, Cederbom G, Bolton JS, et al. Appropriate management of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed by stereotactic core needle breast biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol 1997;4:283 -286[Abstract]
  29. Liberman L, LaTrenta LR, Van Zee KJ, Morris EA, Abramson AF, Dershaw DD. Stereotactic core biopsy of calcifications highly suggestive of malignancy. Radiology 1997;203:673 -677[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Sutton S, Dahltrom JE, Jain S. Stereotactic large-gauge core biopsy: its role in the diagnosis of non-palpable mammographic abnormalities presenting to a screening service. Australas Radiol 1997;41:103 -108[Medline]
  31. Liberman L, Dershaw DD, Glassman JR, et al. Analysis of cancers not diagnosed at stereotactic core breast biopsy. Radiology 1997;203:151 -157[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Smith DN, Christian R, Meyer JE. Large-core needle biopsy of nonpalpable breast cancers: the impact on subsequent excisions. Arch Surg 1997;132:256 -259[Abstract]
  33. Lee CH, Egglin TK, Philpotts L, Mainiero MB, Tocino I. Cost-effectiveness of stereotactic core needle biopsy: analysis by means of mammographic findings. Radiology 1997;202:849 -854[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Burbank F. Stereotactic breast biopsy of atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ lesions: improved accuracy with directional, vacuum-assisted biopsy. Radiology 1997;202:843 -847[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Florentine BD, Cobb CJ, Frankel K, Greaves T, Martin SE. Core needle biopsy: a useful adjunct to fine-needle aspiration in select patients with palpable breast lesions. Cancer 1997;81:33 -39[Medline]
  36. Pijnappel RM, van Dalen A, Rinkes IH, van den Tweel JG, Mali WP. The diagnostic accuracy of core biopsy in palpable and non-palpable breast lesions. Eur J Radiol 1997;24:120 -123[Medline]
  37. Lifrange E, Kridelka F, Colin C. Stereotaxic needle-core biopsy and fine-needle aspiration biopsy in the diagnosis of nonpalpable breast lesions: controversies and future prospects. Eur J Radiol 1997;24:39 -47[Medline]
  38. Head JF, Haynes AE, Elliott MC, Elliott RL. Stereotaxic localization and core needle biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions: two year follow-up of a prospective study. Am Surg 1996;62:1018 -1023[Medline]
  39. Nguyen M, McCombs MM, Ghandehari S, et al. An update on core needle biopsy for radiologically detected breast lesions. Cancer 1996;78:2340 -2345[Medline]
  40. Taft R, Chao K, Dear P, King C. The role of core biopsy in the diagnosis of mammographically detected lesions. Aust N Z J Surg 1996;66:664 -667[Medline]
  41. Tocino I, Garcia BM, Carter D. Surgical biopsy findings in patients with atypical hyperplasia diagnosed by stereotactic core needle biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol 1996;3:483 -488[Abstract]
  42. Frayne J, Sterrett GF, Harvey J, et al. Stereotactic 14 gauge core-biopsy of the breast: results from 101 patients. Aust N Z J Surg 1996;66:585 -591[Medline]
  43. Meyer JE, Christian RL, Lester SC, et al. Evaluation of nonpalpable solid breast masses with stereotaxic large-needle core biopsy using a dedicated unit. AJR 1996;167:179 -182[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  44. Dahlstrom JE, Sutton S, Jain S. Histologic precision of stereotactic core biopsy in diagnosis of malignant and premalignant breast lesions. Histopathology 1996;28 : 537-541[Medline]
  45. Liberman L, Dershaw DD, Rosen PP, Morris EA, Cohen MA, Abramson AF. Core needle biopsy of synchronous ipsilateral breast lesions: impact on treatment. AJR 1996;166:1429 -1432[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  46. Dahlstrom JE, Jain S, Sutton T, Sutton S. Diagnostic accuracy of stereotactic core biopsy in a mammographic breast cancer screening programme. Histopathology 1996;28:421 -427[Medline]
  47. Montgomery S. Atypical ductal hyperplasia from stereotactic core biopsy of the breast (letter). AJR 1996;166:1230[Medline]
  48. Fuhrman G, Cederbom G, Champagne J, et al. Stereotactic core needle breast biopsy is an accurate diagnostic technique to assess nonpalpable mammographic abnormalities. J La State Med Soc 1996;148:167 -170[Medline]
  49. Mainiero MB, Philpotts LE, Lee CH, Lange RC, Carter D, Tocino I. Stereotaxic core needle biopsy of breast microcalcifications: correlation of target accuracy and diagnosis with lesion size. Radiology 1996;198:665 -669[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  50. Dershaw DD, Morris EA, Liberman L, Abramson AF. Nondiagnostic stereotaxic core breast biopsy: results of rebiopsy. Radiology 1996;198:323 -325[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  51. Polger MR, Denison CM, Lester S, Meyer JE. Pseudoangiomatous stromal hyperplasia: mammographic and sonographic appearances. AJR 1996;166:349 -352[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  52. Cohen MA, Morris EA, Rosen PP, Dershaw DD, Liberman L, Abramson AF. Pseudoangiomatous stromal hyperplasia: mammographic, sonographic, and clinical patterns. Radiology 1996;198:117 -120[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  53. Liberman L, Dershaw DD, Durfree S, et al. Recurrent carcinoma after breast conservation: diagnosis with stereotactic core biopsy. Radiology 1995;197:735 -738[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  54. Liberman L, Dershaw DD, Rosen PP, Cohen MA, Hann LE, Abramson AF. Stereotaxic core biopsy of impalpable spiculated breast masses. AJR 1995;165:551 -554[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  55. Doyle AJ, Murray KA, Nelson EW, Bragg DG. Selective use of image-guided large-core needle biopsy of the breast: accuracy and cost-effectiveness. AJR 1995;165:281 -284[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  56. Rubin E, Dempsey P, Pile NS, et al. Needle-localization biopsy of the breast: impact of a selective core needle biopsy program on yield. Radiology 1995;195:627 -631[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  57. Liberman L, Cohen MA, Dershaw DD, Abramson AF, Hann LE, Rosen PP. Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at stereotaxic core biopsy of breast lesions: an indication for surgical biopsy. AJR 1995;164:1111 -1113[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  58. Vega A, Garijo F, Ortega E. Core needle aspiration biopsy of palpable breast masses. Acta Oncol 1995;34:31 -34[Medline]
  59. Israel PZ, Fine RE. Stereotactic needle biopsy for occult breast lesions: a minimally invasive alternative. Am Surg 1995;61:87 -91[Medline]
  60. Jackman RJ, Nowels KW, Shepard MJ, Finklestein SI, Marzoni FA. Stereotactic large-core needle biopsy of 450 nonpalpable breast lesions with surgical correlation in lesions with cancer or atypical hyperplasia. Radiology 1994;193:91 -95[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  61. Gisvold JJ, Goellner JR, Grant CS, et al. Breast biopsy: a comparative study of stereotaxically guided core and excisional techniques. AJR 1994;162:815 -820[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  62. Burbank F, Kaye K, Belville J, Ekuan J, Blumenfeld M. Image-guided automated core biopsies of the breast, chest, abdomen and pelvis. Radiology 1994;191:165 -171[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  63. Liberman L, Evans WP, Dershaw DD, et al. Radiography of microcalcifications in stereotaxic mammary core biopsy specimens. Radiology 1994;190:223 -225[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  64. Brendlinger DL, Robinson R, Sylvest V, Burton S. Stereotactic core breast biopsy an alternative. Va Med Q 1994;121:179 -184[Medline]
  65. Rotten D, Levaillant JM, Leridon H, Letessier A, Sandres M. Ultrasonographically guided fine needle aspiration cytology and core-needle biopsy in the diagnosis of breast tumors. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1993;49:175 -186[Medline]
  66. Dowlatshahi K, Yaremko ML, Kluskens LF, Jokish PM. Nonpalpable breast lesions: findings of stereotaxic needle-core biopsy and fine-needle aspiration cytology. Radiology 1991;181:745 -750[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  67. Parker SH, Lovin JD, Jobe WE, et al. Stereotactic breast biopsy with a biopsy gun. Radiology 1990;176:741 -747[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  68. Minkowitz S, Moskowitz R, Khafif RA, Alderete M. Tru-Cut needle biopsy of the breast: an analysis of its specificity and sensitivity. Cancer 1986;57:320 -323[Medline]
  69. Rosen PP. Rosen's breast pathology. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1997:186
  70. Page DL, Anderson TJ. Diagnostic histopathology of the breast. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1987: 137
  71. Tavassoli FA. Pathology of the breast. Norwalk, CT: Appleton and Lange, 1992:161
  72. Berg WA, Krebs TL, Campassi C, Madger LS, Sun CJ. Evaluation of 14- and 11-gauge directional, vacuum-assisted biopsy probes and 14-gauge biopsy guns in a breast parenchymal model. Radiology 1997;205:203 -208[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  73. Foote FW, Stewart FW. Lobular carcinoma in situ: a rare form of mammary cancer. Am J Pathol 1941;17:491 -496
  74. Page DL, Anderson TJ. Diagnostic histopathology of the breast. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1987: 145
  75. Rosen PP. Rosen's breast pathology. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1997:530
  76. Page DL, Anderson TJ. Diagnostic histopathology of the breast. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1987: 104
  77. Page DL, Anderson TJ. Diagnostic histopathology of the breast. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1987: 115
  78. Page DL, Anderson TJ. Diagnostic histopathology of the breast. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1987: 113
  79. Tavassoli FA. Pathology of the breast. Norwalk, CT: Appleton and Lange, 1992:201
  80. Tavassoli FA. Pathology of the breast. Norwalk, CT: Appleton and Lange, 1992:197
  81. Page DL, Anderson TJ. Diagnostic histopathology of the breast. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1987: 121
  82. Rosen PP. Rosen's breast pathology. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1997:178
  83. Rosen PP. Rosen's breast pathology. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1997:159 -163
  84. Page DL, Anderson TJ. Diagnostic histopathology of the breast. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1987: 343
  85. Page DL, Anderson TJ. Diagnostic histopathology of the breast. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1987: 91
  86. Sloane JP, Mayers MM. Carcinoma and atypical hyperplasia in radial scars and complex sclerosing lesions: importance of lesion size and patient age. Histopathology 1993;23:225 -231[Medline]
  87. Tavassoli FA. Pathology of the breast. Norwalk, CT: Appleton and Lange, 1992:507
  88. Rosen PP. Rosen's breast pathology. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1997:659

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Ann. Surg. Oncol.Home page
A. R. Skandarajah, L. Field, A. Y. L. Mou, M. Buchanan, J. Evans, S. Hart, and G. B. Mann
Benign Papilloma on Core Biopsy Requires Surgical Excision
Ann. Surg. Oncol., August 1, 2008; 15(8): 2272 - 2277.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann. Surg. Oncol.Home page
V. Sohn, J. Keylock, Z. Arthurs, A. Wilson, G. Herbert, J. Perry, M. Eckert, D. Smith, S. Groo, and T. Brown
Breast Papillomas in the Era of Percutaneous Needle Biopsy
Ann. Surg. Oncol., October 1, 2007; 14(10): 2979 - 2984.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadioGraphicsHome page
D. J. Doshi, D. E. March, G. M. Crisi, and B. F. Coughlin
Complex Cystic Breast Masses: Diagnostic Approach and Imaging-Pathologic Correlation
RadioGraphics, October 1, 2007; 27(suppl_1): S53 - S64.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadioGraphicsHome page
S. Pandey, M. J. Kornstein, W. Shank, and E. S. de Paredes
Columnar Cell Lesions of the Breast: Mammographic Findings with Histopathologic Correlation
RadioGraphics, October 1, 2007; 27(suppl_1): S79 - S89.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann. Surg. Oncol.Home page
M. F. Dillon, E. W. McDermott, A. D. Hill, A. O'Doherty, N. O'Higgins, and C. M. Quinn
Predictive Value of Breast Lesions of "Uncertain Malignant Potential" and "Suspicious for Malignancy" Determined by Needle Core Biopsy
Ann. Surg. Oncol., February 1, 2007; 14(2): 704 - 711.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
M. C. Mahoney, T. M. Robinson-Smith, and E. A. Shaughnessy
Lobular Neoplasia at 11-Gauge Vacuum-Assisted Stereotactic Biopsy: Correlation with Surgical Excisional Biopsy and Mammographic Follow-Up
Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2006; 187(4): 949 - 954.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
INT J SURG PATHOLHome page
S. Shousha
Issues in the Interpretation of Breast Core Biopsies
International Journal of Surgical Pathology, July 1, 2003; 11(3): 167 - 176.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
E. C. Gombos, R. J. Poppiti Jr., and R. J. Brenner
Percutaneous Core Needle Biopsy of Radial Scars of the Breast
Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2003; 181(1): 275 - 275.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
H. K. Gill, O. B. Ioffe, and W. A. Berg
When Is a Diagnosis of Sclerosing Adenosis Acceptable at Core Biopsy?
Radiology, July 1, 2003; 228(1): 50 - 57.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
W. A. Berg, C. I. Campassi, and O. B. Ioffe
Cystic Lesions of the Breast: Sonographic-Pathologic Correlation
Radiology, April 1, 2003; 227(1): 183 - 191.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
R. J. Brenner, R. J. Jackman, S. H. Parker, W. P. Evans III, L. Philpotts, B. M. Deutch, M. C. Lechner, D. Lehrer, P. Sylvan, R. Hunt, et al.
Percutaneous Core Needle Biopsy of Radial Scars of the Breast: When Is Excision Necessary?
Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2002; 179(5): 1179 - 1184.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
E. L. Rosen, R. C. Bentley, J. A. Baker, and M. S. Soo
Imaging-Guided Core Needle Biopsy of Papillary Lesions of the Breast
Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2002; 179(5): 1185 - 1192.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
R. J. Jackman, R. L. Birdwell, and D. M. Ikeda
Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia: Can Some Lesions Be Defined as Probably Benign after Stereotactic 11-gauge Vacuum-assisted Biopsy, Eliminating the Recommendation for Surgical Excision?
Radiology, August 1, 2002; 224(2): 548 - 554.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
J. A. Perez-Fuentes, I. R. Longobardi, V. F. Acosta, C. E. Marin, and L. Liberman
Sonographically Guided Directional Vacuum-Assisted Breast Biopsy: Preliminary Experience in Venezuela
Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2001; 177(6): 1459 - 1463.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
F. R. Margolin, J. W. T. Leung, R. P. Jacobs, and S. R. Denny
Percutaneous Imaging-Guided Core Breast Biopsy: 5 Years' Experience in a Community Hospital
Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2001; 177(3): 559 - 564.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
D. Georgian-Smith and T. J. Lawton
Calcifications of Lobular Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast: Radiologic--Pathologic Correlation
Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2001; 176(5): 1255 - 1259.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Reynolds, H. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Reynolds, H. E.
Social Bookmarking