AJR Click to access the Dec 2009 issue
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
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 Eby, P. R.
Right arrow Articles by Lehman, C. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Eby, P. R.
Right arrow Articles by Lehman, C. D.
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?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?
DOI:10.2214/AJR.08.1342
AJR 2009; 192:229-234
© American Roentgen Ray Society


Original Research

Frequency and Upgrade Rates of Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia Diagnosed at Stereotactic Vacuum-Assisted Breast Biopsy: 9-Versus 11-Gauge

Peter R. Eby1,2, Jennifer E. Ochsner1,2, Wendy B. DeMartini1,2, Kimberly H. Allison2,3, Sue Peacock1,2 and Constance D. Lehman1,2

1 Department of Radiology, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA.
2 Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, 825 Eastlake Ave. E, G3-200, Seattle, WA 98109-1023.
3 Department of Pathology, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA.

Received June 3, 2008; accepted after revision July 26, 2008.

 
Address correspondence to P. R. Eby (preby{at}u.washington.edu).

FOR YOUR INFORMATION

Realize Your Potential with AJR Integrative Imaging

Each quarterly issue of AJR Integrative Imaging offers you a series of peer-reviewed learning opportunities, many with CME credit, which will challenge and enhance your diagnostic and treatment skills. Whether it is the printed version or the online version, AJR Integrative Imaging is an important tool for your professional development. For more information or the latest issue of AJR Integrative Imaging, visit www.ajronline.org.


Abstract
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
OBJECTIVE. Our goals were to determine the frequency and upgrade rate for atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) diagnosed with stereotactic 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy and to compare the frequencies and upgrade rates of ADH between 9- and 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. We retrospectively reviewed the pathology results of 991 consecutive 9- or 11-gauge stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy procedures from February 2001 through June 2006 and identified lesions diagnosed as ADH. The final diagnosis after surgical excision was determined from medical records. The frequencies and upgrade rates to carcinoma were calculated for all ADH lesions and compared between 9- and 11-gauge procedures. The number of core samples was recorded and compared.

RESULTS. One hundred forty-one of 991 (14.2%) lesions yielded a diagnosis of ADH at 9- or 11-gauge stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Upgrade to ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive carcinoma occurred in 26 of 123 (21.1%) patients. The frequency of ADH was 83 of 600 (13.8%) lesions for 9-gauge and 58 of 391 (14.8%) lesions for 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. The 9-gauge upgrade rate was 16 of 74 (21.6%) lesions compared with 10 of 49 (20.4%) lesions for 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. There was no significant difference between the number of core samples obtained with each device (p = 0.40). Neither the frequency of ADH (p = 0.66) nor the upgrade rates (p = 0.87) were significantly different between 9- and 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy.

CONCLUSION. Compared with an 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy device, the use of a larger 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy needle does not decrease the upgrade rate of ADH. Our frequency of ADH at vacuum-assisted breast biopsy is higher than any previously reported and may reflect regional differences in the incidence of breast cancer or practice patterns of the pathologist.

Keywords: atypical ductal hyperplasia • breast • cancer • core needle biopsy • imaging-guided intervention


Introduction
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
A typical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) is discovered in 2-11% of cases when percutaneous biopsy is performed for suspicious breast imaging findings [1-30]. ADH is generally defined as a proliferative breast lesion with some but not all of the features of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) [31]. It is currently considered a high-risk lesion rather than a direct precursor to invasive carcinoma [32-34]. However, because ADH and DCIS are pathologically similar and may coexist, a diagnosis of ADH after an imaging-guided biopsy of a breast lesion may underestimate the presence of DCIS or invasive carcinoma.

Upgraded lesions are those with an initial histopathologic diagnosis of ADH at imaging-guided biopsy that subsequently yield DCIS or invasive carcinoma after a surgical excision. The reported rates of upgrade for ADH lesions average 44% for 14-gauge spring-loaded stereotactic core biopsy, 24% for 14-gauge directional vacuum-assisted breast biopsy, and 19% for 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy needles (range, 0-58%) [1-30]. The diagnosis of ADH after percutaneous needle sampling is an indication for surgical excision to exclude the diagnosis of breast carcinoma.

Advances in needle biopsy techniques, such as increasing needle diameter from 14- to 11-gauge and adding vacuum assistance, have allowed larger samples of tissue to be obtained [35, 36]. Research by Darling et al. [22] suggests that increased sample weights result in significantly decreased rates of upgrade. In addition, Sneige et al. [37] described an upgrade rate of only 7% for ADH obtained with 14- or 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy.

The use of 9-gauge directional vacuum-assisted breast biopsy needles for percutaneous tissue biopsy is increasing. The weight of each sample acquired during a typical 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy is significantly greater than that acquired during an 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy [38]. A single study by Lourenco et al. [30] has provided data on upgrade rates for high-risk or malignant lesions discovered with 9-gauge stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. The authors found no significant difference between 9- and 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy diagnoses of ADH or upgrade rates. Additional data on the frequency and upgrade rate of ADH after 9-gauge stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy is needed to confirm prior results.

The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency of diagnosis and upgrade rate of ADH at stereotactic 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. We also sought to determine if the use of 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy devices would significantly decrease the upgrade rate for ADH when compared with 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy devices.


Materials and Methods
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
Our institutional review board approved this retrospective HIPAA-compliant study. We reviewed our database for all stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy procedures performed between February 1, 2001, and June 30, 2006. Patients were referred for stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy by fellowship-trained breast imagers after a complete diagnostic workup of a mammographic abnormality that received a BI-RADS category 4 (suspicious) or 5 (highly suggestive of malignancy) final assessment [39]. Workups were performed with film-screen mammography from February 2001 through March 2004 and with full-field digital mammography from April 2004 through June 2006. Stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy procedures were performed with the patient prone on a dedicated biopsy table (Lorad, Hologic). Three hundred ninety-one consecutive 11-gauge directional vacuum-assisted breast biopsy procedures (Mammotome, Ethicon Endo-Surgery) were performed from February 2001 through November 2003 (34 months), followed by 600 consecutive 9-gauge directional vacuum-assisted breast biopsy procedures (ATEC, Suros Surgical Systems) performed from December 2003 through June 2006 (31 months), for a total of 991 biopsies in 65 months.

Clinical and patient data were collected from the electronic medical record system. The indication for stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy, patient age, the number of days between stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy and surgical biopsy, and histopathology results were recorded. Two histopathology results were collected for each lesion: the diagnosis at stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy and the diagnosis at surgical excisional biopsy. Similar to the study of Jackman et al. [25], lesions were excluded from the upgrade analysis if excision of the biopsy site could not be verified. Therefore, lesions without dedicated surgical excision for the site of ADH, because the patient either did not return to our center or chose mastectomy because of a concurrent diagnosis of cancer in the ipsilateral breast, were excluded from the upgrade analysis.

Four pathologists with a subspecialty focus in breast pathology reviewed cases during the study period. A lesion was designated as ADH at core biopsy according to the published criteria of Page and Rogers [31]. Lesions were included in the study if the vacuum-assisted breast biopsy pathology report indicated ADH without concomitant in situ or invasive cancer. We excluded lesions diagnosed as columnar cell change with atypia, flat epithelial atypia, or atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH) if ADH was not also present. Alternatively, lesions were included if ADH was accompanied by other high-risk histology such as ALH or radial scar, a method previously used by other authors [25].

The number of vacuum-assisted breast biopsy samples obtained at each biopsy was recorded on a data sheet at the time of the procedure and included in the report. This number was extracted from the reports for each lesion and included in the statistical analysis. Chi-square, Fisher's exact, and Student's t tests for statistical significance were performed to compare the frequency of ADH, rates of upgrade, and the number of vacuum-assisted breast biopsy samples between 9- and 11-gauge procedures with SAS statistical software, version 9.1.3, and p < 0.05 was considered significant.


Results
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
9-Gauge Stereotactic Vacuum-Assisted Breast Biopsy
Eighty-three of 600 (13.8%) consecutive procedures performed with 9-gauge stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy yielded ADH without DCIS or invasive carcinoma (Table 1). The 83 lesions included 81 cases of suspicious calcifications and two masses in 80 women. Records of breast surgery were available for 77 of the 83 (92.8%) lesions. One patient deferred excision because of a concurrent diagnosis of lung cancer, and five patients did not return to our institution for the recommended surgery. Mastectomy was performed in three patients, and, as in the study by Jackman et al. [25], these three lesions were excluded from the final analysis because upgrade at the site of ADH could not be accurately determined. This left 74 ADH lesions in 71 patients with a median age of 55 years (age range, 38-84 years) who had follow-up histology for the final analysis. The median number of days between stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy and surgical excision was 46, with a range of 11-777 days. All but five patients underwent surgical excision within 180 days of the stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Seven of 74 (9.5%) lesions were ADH with another high-risk pathology (three ADH with ALH and four ADH with radial scar), and two of them were upgraded to DCIS. The histopathologic results of surgical excision yielded cancer in 16 of 74 (21.6%) lesions, with upgrade of 14 of 16 (87.5%) to DCIS and two of 16 (12.5%) to invasive ductal carcinoma and DCIS. None of the lesions in the five patients who underwent surgical excision after 180 days were upgraded.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
TABLE 1 : Results of 9- and 11-Gauge Vacuum-Assisted Breast Biopsy

 

The number of samples taken at 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy was recorded in 49 of 74 (66.2%) vacuum-assisted breast biopsy procedures for a mean of 9.9 and median of 8.0 (range, 6-20, Table 2). A mean of 8.4 and median of 8.0 (range, 6-12) of 9-gauge samples were taken from the nine of 49 (18.4%) lesions that were upgraded, and a mean of 10.2 and median of 9.0 (range, 6-20) samples were obtained in the 40 of 49 (81.6%) lesions that were not upgraded. The odds of upgrade after 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy were not related to the number of samples taken (odds ratio = 1.2; 95% CI, 0.9-1.6).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
TABLE 2 : Number of Vacuum-Assisted Breast Biopsy Samples Taken for Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia (ADH)

 

11-Gauge Stereotactic Vacuum-Assisted Breast Biopsy
We calculated outcomes for 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy to determine if our frequency of ADH and upgrade rates were related to needle size. Three hundred ninety-one procedures were performed with 11-gauge stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy, yielding ADH in 58 of 391 (14.8%) lesions (Table 1). All 58 lesions were suspicious calcifications. Records of breast surgery were available for 52 of 58 (89.7%) lesions. Four patients did not return to our institution, one deferred excision because of concurrent treatment for acute myelogenous leukemia, and one deferred excision because an excisional biopsy in the same breast 6 months prior revealed ADH and LCIS. Three lesions were excluded because the patients underwent mastectomy for cancer in the ipsilateral breast and upgrade at the site of ADH could not be determined accurately. This left 49 lesions in patients with a median age of 55 years (age range, 41-79 years) with ADH and follow-up histology for the upgrade analysis. Five of 49 (10.2%) lesions were ADH with another high-risk pathology (one ADH with ALH, two ADH with radial scar, and two ADH with LCIS), and none of them were upgraded. The median number of days between stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy and surgical excision was 41 (range, 10-173 days). The histopathologic results of surgical excision yielded cancer in 10 of 49 (20.4%) lesions, with seven of 10 (70.0%) resulting in DCIS and three of 10 (30.0%), invasive ductal carcinoma.

The number of samples taken at 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy was recorded in 31 of 49 (63.3%) cases for a mean of 10.5 samples and median of 12.0 (range, 6-16, Table 2). A mean of 11.5 and median of 12.0 (range, 8-12) 11-gauge samples were taken from the eight of 31 (25.8%) lesions that were upgraded, and a mean of 10.1 and median of 12.0 (range, 6-16) samples were obtained in the 23 of 31 (74.2%) lesions that were not upgraded. The odds of upgrade were not related to the number of samples taken at 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (odds ratio = 0.8; 95% CI, 0.5-1.1).

9-Versus 11-Gauge
The frequency of ADH was similar for 9- (13.8%) and 11-gauge (14.8%) vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (p = 0.66, chi square test) (Table 1). The difference in upgrade rate between 9- (21.6%) and 11-gauge (20.4%) vacuum-assisted breast biopsy was not significant (p = 0.87, chi square test) (Table 1). The difference between the mean number of samples taken at 9- (9.9) and 11-gauge (10.5) vacuum-assisted breast biopsy was not significant (p = 0.4, Student's t test) (Table 2).


Discussion
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
The reliability of stereotactic biopsy for sampling suspicious breast lesions is well established and has significantly reduced the need for surgical excisional biopsy for diagnosis. ADH has been reported in 2-11% of abnormal mammographic findings and is currently considered a high-risk lesion because invasive cancer or DCIS is discovered in approximately 19% of cases when additional tissue is removed [25]. Therefore, surgical excision is recommended after a diagnosis of ADH on stereotactic biopsy.

A single study by Lourenco et al. [30] has provided data on frequency and upgrade rates for high-risk or malignant lesions discovered with 9-gauge stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. The authors describe the frequencies of ADH as 8.4% for 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy and 7.5% for 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Liberman et al. [40] and Orel et al. [41] reported frequencies of ADH at 9-gauge MR-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy of 6% and 9%, respectively. In our study, the frequency of ADH was 13.8% for 9- and 14.8% for 11-gauge stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (Table 3). The combined frequency of ADH in our population undergoing 9- or 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy was 14.2%. This is higher than any previously published results. In prior studies, the frequency of diagnosis of ADH ranges from 2% to 9% at 14-gauge biopsy and from 3% to 11% at 11-gauge biopsy [1-25]. In a meta-analysis of 14- and 11-gauge breast biopsy procedures, Jackman et al. [25] reported a 5% frequency of ADH (894/18,601).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
TABLE 3 : Summary of Published Data on the Incidence and Upgrade Rate of Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia (ADH) After II- or 9-Gauge Vacuum-Assisted Breast Biopsy and Surgical Excision

 

Our relatively high frequency of ADH translates to a significant clinical impact because we must recommend surgical excision for all of these patients. There are several potential hypotheses for our greater frequency of ADH. Perhaps it is attributable to the practice patterns of our pathologists, with a relative overcalling of ADH on vacuum-assisted breast biopsy samples. If so, we would expect a relatively low rate of upgrade after excisional biopsy. As previously reviewed, in the study by Jackman et al. [25], upgrade rates of ADH averaged 19% (range, 10-38%) at 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Our upgrade rate of 20.4% for 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy at excision is similar to that found in prior studies. In addition, the upgrade rate for 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in our population is 21.6%, which is comparable to that of biopsies performed with other needle sizes. Liberman et al. [40] and Orel et al. [41] reported upgrade rates of ADH at 9-gauge MR-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy of 38% and 25%, respectively. Lourenco et al. [30] reported an upgrade rate of 29.6% for 9-gauge stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. The similarities in upgrade rates between our population and other published data suggest that our higher incidence of ADH is unlikely to be a result of overcalling of ADH by pathologists.

Alternatively, it is possible that our pathologists could have diagnosed ADH in lesions that other pathologists may have classified as DCIS, resulting in a relative undercalling of DCIS on core needle biopsies. It is likely that those lesions would be upgraded at the time of surgical excision, but this is not certain. This practice pattern could result in high rates of ADH and upgrade.

It is interesting to consider the variability that may exist in pathologists' practice patterns and how this variability affects patient care. The diagnosis of ADH is known to have significant interobserver variability even among experts in breast pathology [42]. Because this is a retrospective study involving four pathologists, it is impossible to know how consistently the criteria were being applied, and this is a weakness. A blinded review of all cases by a single pathologist with defined consistent diagnostic criteria could help to address this issue, but it is beyond the scope of the current study.

The acquisition of a larger volume of tissue at biopsy could contribute to a higher observed incidence of ADH if it was an incidental finding. It has been shown that a 14-gauge automated core biopsy device yields individual core samples weighing an average of 17.7 mg, whereas 14-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy devices average 36.8 mg per core, and 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy devices average 94.4 mg per core [35]. It follows that a 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy device obtains yet more tissue per core, and Poellinger et al. [38] reported an average specimen weight of 132.7 mg for a 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy system. Our frequency of ADH after 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (14.8%) is higher than that reported by Lourenco et al. [30] (8.4%), who used the same device (Table 3). This suggests that our higher observed frequency of ADH is not related to sample size.

We hypothesize that the increased incidence of ADH in our population may reflect the known regional difference in breast cancer incidence. The 2000-2004 age-adjusted Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) incidence of breast cancer averages 127.8 per 100,000 and ranges from 110.8 to 145.8 across 19 regional registries [43]. The Seattle-Puget Sound registry has the highest incidence on the list. Therefore, we may expect a higher incidence of ADH in our population. If so, we should counsel patients specifically about the risks of a diagnosis of ADH and the recommendations that follow. In addition, it would be advantageous to identify biopsy-related factors, such as needle size, that may allow us to forgo surgical excision in some patients.

It has been theorized that a larger volume of tissue collected at core needle biopsy may negate sampling error and suffice for diagnostic purposes in the setting of ADH. Indeed, the reported rates of upgrade for ADH lesions average 44% for 14-gauge spring-loaded stereotactic core biopsy, 24% for 14-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy, and 19% for 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy needles (range, 0-58%) [1-29]. Research by Darling et al. [22] suggests that increased sample weights result in significantly decreased rates of upgrade. Sneige et al. [37] described an upgrade rate of only 7% for ADH obtained with 14- or 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. However, Lourenco et al. [30] reported an upgrade rate of 29.6% for ADH lesions initially sampled with 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. This contradicts some prior data that suggest larger samples result in more accurate diagnosis and less underestimation of disease. Our upgrade rates of 20.4% for 11-gauge and 21.6% for 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy were not significantly different on the basis of needle size. Although the data are somewhat limited because the number of samples taken at the time of biopsy was reported for 65.0% of cases, the mean was less for 9-than for 11-gauge (9.9 vs 10.5 samples) but this was not statistically significant. Our data also indicate that the larger size of a 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy device does not decrease upgrade rates.

In conclusion, there is no significant difference in the frequencies of ADH diagnosed with 9- and 11-gauge stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy, and the use of a larger 9-gauge needle does not decrease the upgrade rate of ADH. The high incidence of ADH and upgrade rate to carcinoma in our patient population may reflect regional differences in the incidence of cancer and precancerous lesions or the practice patterns of our pathologists.


References
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 

  1. Liberman L, Dershaw DD, Glassman JR, et al. Analysis of cancers not diagnosed at stereotactic core breast biopsy. Radiology1997; 203:151 -157[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Jackman RJ, Nowels KW, Shepard MJ, Finkelstein SI, Marzoni FA Jr. Stereotaxic large-core needle biopsy of 450 nonpalpable breast lesions with surgical correlation in lesions with cancer or atypical hyperplasia. Radiology1994; 193:91 -95[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. 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. AJR1995; 164:1111 -1113[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Tocino I, Garcia BM, Carter D. Surgical biopsy findings in patients with atypical hyperplasia diagnosed by stereotaxic core needle biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol1996; 3:483 -488[CrossRef][Medline]
  5. Nguyen M, McCombs MM, Ghandehari S, et al. An update on core needle biopsy for radiologically detected breast lesions. Cancer 1996;78:2340 -2345[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. Burbank F. Stereotactic breast biopsy of atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ lesions: improved accuracy with directional, vacuum-assisted biopsy. Radiology1997; 202:843 -847[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Lee CH, Egglin TK, Philpotts L, Mainiero MB, Tocino I. Cost-effectiveness of stereotactic core needle biopsy: analysis by means of mammographic findings. Radiology1997; 202:849 -854[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Moore MM, Hargett CW 3rd, Hanks JB, et al. Association of breast cancer with the finding of atypical ductal hyperplasia at core breast biopsy. Ann Surg 1997;225:726 -731; discussion 731-723[CrossRef][Medline]
  9. Gadzala DE, Cederbom GJ, Bolton JS, et al. Appropriate management of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed by stereotactic core needle breast biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol1997; 4:283 -286[CrossRef][Medline]
  10. 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. Radiology1997; 204:485 -488[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. 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[CrossRef][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 Surg1998; 175:380 -382[CrossRef][Medline]
  13. 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 Surg1998; 227:932 -939[CrossRef][Medline]
  14. Liberman L, Smolkin JH, Dershaw DD, Morris EA, Abramson AF, Rosen PP. Calcification retrieval at stereotactic, 11-gauge, directional, vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Radiology1998; 208:251 -260[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Jackman RJ, Nowels KW, Rodriguez-Soto J, Marzoni FA Jr, Finkelstein SI, Shepard MJ. Stereotactic, automated, large-core needle biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions: false-negative and histologic underestimation rates after long-term follow-up. Radiology1999; 210:799 -805[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Brem RF, Behrndt VS, Sanow L, Gatewood OM. Atypical ductal hyperplasia: histologic underestimation of carcinoma in tissue harvested from impalpable breast lesions using 11-gauge stereotactically guided directional vacuum-assisted biopsy. AJR1999; 172:1405 -1407[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Meyer JE, Smith DN, Lester SC, et al. Large-core needle biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions. JAMA1999; 281:1638 -1641[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Burak WE Jr, Owens KE, Tighe MB, et al. Vacuum-assisted stereotactic breast biopsy: histologic underestimation of malignant lesions. Arch Surg2000; 135:700 -703[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Philpotts LE, Lee CH, Horvath LJ, Lange RC, Carter D, Tocino I. Underestimation of breast cancer with 11-gauge vacuum suction biopsy. AJR 2000;175:1047 -1050[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. O'Hea BJ, Tornos C. Mild ductal atypia after large-core needle biopsy of the breast: is surgical excision always necessary? Surgery 2000;128:738 -743[CrossRef][Medline]
  21. Adrales G, Turk P, Wallace T, Bird R, Norton HJ, Greene F. Is surgical excision necessary for atypical ductal hyperplasia of the breast diagnosed by Mammotome? Am J Surg2000; 180:313 -315[CrossRef][Medline]
  22. Darling ML, Smith DN, Lester SC, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ as revealed by large-core needle breast biopsy: results of surgical excision. AJR2000; 175:1341 -1346[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Cangiarella J, Waisman J, Symmans WF, et al. Mammotome core biopsy for mammary microcalcification: analysis of 160 biopsies from 142 women with surgical and radiologic followup. Cancer2001; 91:173 -177[CrossRef][Medline]
  24. Lai JT, Burrowes P, MacGregor JH. Diagnostic accuracy of a stereotaxically guided vacuum-assisted large-core breast biopsy program in Canada. Can Assoc Radiol J2001; 52:223 -227[Medline]
  25. Jackman RJ, Birdwell RL, Ikeda DM. Atypical ductal hyperplasia: can some lesions be defined as probably benign after stereotactic 11-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy, eliminating the recommendation for surgical excision? Radiology2002; 224:548 -554[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Rao A, Parker S, Ratzer E, Stephens J, Fenoglio M. Atypical ductal hyperplasia of the breast diagnosed by 11-gauge directional vacuum-assisted biopsy. Am J Surg2002; 184:534 -537; discussion 537[CrossRef][Medline]
  27. Pandelidis S, Heiland D, Jones D, Stough K, Trapeni J, Suliman Y. Accuracy of 11-gauge vacuum-assisted core biopsy of mammographic breast lesions. Ann Surg Oncol2003; 10:43 -47[CrossRef][Medline]
  28. Winchester DJ, Bernstein JR, Jeske JM, et al. Upstaging of atypical ductal hyperplasia after vacuum-assisted 11-gauge stereotactic core needle biopsy. Arch Surg2003; 138:619 -622; discussion 622-623[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Sohn V, Arthurs Z, Herbert G, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia: improved accuracy with the 11-gauge vacuum-assisted versus the 14-gauge core biopsy needle. Ann Surg Oncol2007; 14:2497 -2501[CrossRef][Medline]
  30. Lourenco AP, Mainiero MB, Lazarus E, Giri D, Schepps B. Stereotactic breast biopsy: comparison of histologic underestimation rates with 11- and 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. AJR 2007;189:1164; [web]W275-W279
  31. Page DL, Rogers LW. Combined histologic and cytologic criteria for the diagnosis of mammary atypical ductal hyperplasia. Hum Pathol 1992;23:1095 -1097[CrossRef][Medline]
  32. Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW, Rados MS. Atypical hyperplastic lesions of the female breast: a long-term follow-up study. Cancer 1985;55:2698 -2708[CrossRef][Medline]
  33. Tavassoli FA. Atypical hyperplasia: a morphologic risk factor for subsequent development of invasive breast carcinoma. Cancer Invest 1992;10:433 -441[CrossRef][Medline]
  34. Tavassoli FA, Norris HJ. A comparison of the results of long-term follow-up for atypical intraductal hyperplasia and intraductal hyperplasia of the breast. Cancer1990; 65:518 -529[CrossRef][Medline]
  35. Berg WA, Krebs TL, Campassi C, Magder LS, Sun CC. Evaluation of 14- and 11-gauge directional, vacuum-assisted biopsy probes and 14-gauge biopsy guns in a breast parenchymal model. Radiology1997; 205:203 -208[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Burbank F. Specimen weights obtained with 14- and 11-gauge breast biopsy probes. Radiology1998; 208:269 -270[Medline]
  37. Sneige N, Lim SC, Whitman GJ, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosis by directional vacuum-assisted stereotactic biopsy of breast micro-calcifications: considerations for surgical excision. Am J Clin Pathol 2003;119:248 -253[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Poellinger A, Bick U, Freund T, Diekmann S, Hamm B, Diekmann F. Evaluation of 11-gauge and 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy systems in a breast parenchymal model. Acad Radiol2007; 14:677 -684[CrossRef][Medline]
  39. D'Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, Berg WA, et al. Breast imaging and reporting data system: ACR BI-RADS, 4th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003
  40. Liberman L, Holland AE, Marjan D, et al. Underestimation of atypical ductal hyperplasia at MRI-guided 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. AJR2007; 188:684 -690[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  41. Orel SG, Rosen M, Mies C, Schnall MD. MR imaging-guided 9-gauge vacuum-assisted core-needle breast biopsy: initial experience. Radiology2006; 238:54 -61[CrossRef][Medline]
  42. Schnitt SJ, Connolly JL, Tavassoli FA, et al. Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of ductal proliferative breast lesions using standardized criteria. Am J Surg Pathol1992; 16:1133 -1143[Medline]
  43. SEER statistics 2000-2004. National Cancer Institute Website. seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2004/results_single/sect_04_table.17.pdf. Accessed Sept ember 26, 2008

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
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
T. S. Menes, K. Kerlikowske, S. Jaffer, D. Seger, and D. L. Miglioretti
Rates of Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia Have Declined with Less Use of Postmenopausal Hormone Treatment: Findings from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., November 1, 2009; 18(11): 2822 - 2828.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
F. M. Hall
Frequency of Diagnosis of Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia on Breast Biopsy
Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2009; 193(3): W253 - W253.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
P. R. Eby, W. B. DeMartini, and C. D. Lehman
Reply
Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2009; 193(3): W254 - W254.
[Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
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 Eby, P. R.
Right arrow Articles by Lehman, C. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Eby, P. R.
Right arrow Articles by Lehman, C. D.
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?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS