Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2/2016

Open Access 01-09-2016 | Review

First International Consensus Conference on lesions of uncertain malignant potential in the breast (B3 lesions)

Authors: Christoph J. Rageth, Elizabeth AM O’Flynn, Christopher Comstock, Claudia Kurtz, Rahel Kubik, Helmut Madjar, Domenico Lepori, Gert Kampmann, Alexander Mundinger, Astrid Baege, Thomas Decker, Stefanie Hosch, Christoph Tausch, Jean-François Delaloye, Elisabeth Morris, Zsuzsanna Varga

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 2/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to obtain a consensus for the therapy of B3 lesions. The first International Consensus Conference on lesions of uncertain malignant potential in the breast (B3 lesions) including atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), flat epithelial atypia (FEA), classical lobular neoplasia (LN), papillary lesions (PL), benign phyllodes tumors (PT), and radial scars (RS) took place in January 2016 in Zurich, Switzerland organized by the International Breast Ultrasound School and the Swiss Minimally Invasive Breast Biopsy group—a subgroup of the Swiss Society of Senology. Consensus recommendations for the management and follow-up surveillance of these B3 lesions were developed and areas of research priorities were identified. The consensus recommendation for FEA, LN, PL, and RS diagnosed on core needle biopsy or vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) is to therapeutically excise the lesion seen on imaging by VAB and no longer by open surgery, with follow-up surveillance imaging for 5 years. The consensus recommendation for ADH and PT is, with some exceptions, therapeutic first-line open surgical excision. Minimally invasive management of selected B3 lesions with therapeutic VAB is acceptable as an alternative to first-line surgical excision.
Footnotes
1
Focal ADH is not defined in the WHO classification and mentioning the exact dimension of ADH lesions below 2 mm is not mandatory. However recent literature data suggest, that ADH lesions (less than 2 mm in extension max. 2 cross sections) may not have to undergo surgical excision. These data need further validation.
 
Literature
1.
Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Tornberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L (2008) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition–summary document. Ann Oncol 19:614–622CrossRefPubMed
2.
Lakhani SREI, Schnitt SJ, Tan PH, van de Vijver MJ (2012) WHO classification of tumours of the breast, fourth edition 2012. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon
3.
Pathology N-oDSotNCGfBS. Guidelines for non-operative diagnostic procedures and reporting in breast cancer screening. NHSBSP Publication No 50. (2001)
4.
El-Sayed ME, Rakha EA, Reed J, Lee AH, Evans AJ, Ellis IO (2008) Audit of performance of needle core biopsy diagnoses of screen detected breast lesions. Eur J Cancer 44:2580–2586CrossRefPubMed
5.
Rakha EA, Ho BC, Naik V, Sen S, Hamilton LJ, Hodi Z et al (2011) Outcome of breast lesions diagnosed as lesion of uncertain malignant potential (B3) or suspicious of malignancy (B4) on needle core biopsy, including detailed review of epithelial atypia. Histopathology 58:626–632CrossRefPubMed
6.
O’Flynn EA, Wilson AR, Michell MJ (2010) Image-guided breast biopsy: state-of-the-art. Clin Radiol 65:259–270CrossRefPubMed
7.
Alonso-Bartolome P, Vega-Bolivar A, Torres-Tabanera M, Ortega E, Acebal-Blanco M, Garijo-Ayensa F et al (2004) Sonographically guided 11-G directional vacuum-assisted breast biopsy as an alternative to surgical excision: utility and cost study in probably benign lesions. Acta Radiol 45:390–396CrossRefPubMed
8.
Saladin C, Haueisen H, Kampmann G, Oehlschlegel C, Seifert B, Rageth L et al (2015) Lesions with unclear malignant potential (B3) after minimally invasive breast biopsy: evaluation of vacuum biopsies performed in Switzerland and recommended further management. Acta Radiol. 0284185115610931
9.
Neuschatz AC, DiPetrillo T, Safaii H, Price LL, Schmidt-Ullrich RK, Wazer DE (2003) Long-term follow-up of a prospective policy of margin-directed radiation dose escalation in breast-conserving therapy. Cancer 97:30–39CrossRefPubMed
10.
Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW, Rados MS (1985) Atypical hyperplastic lesions of the female breast. A long-term follow-up study. Cancer. 55:2698–2708PubMed
11.
Tavassoli FA, Norris HJ (1990) A comparison of the results of long-term follow-up for atypical intraductal hyperplasia and intraductal hyperplasia of the breast. Cancer 65:518–529CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
Brem RF, Behrndt VS, Sanow L, Gatewood OM (1999) Atypical ductal hyperplasia: histologic underestimation of carcinoma in tissue harvested from impalpable breast lesions using 11-gauge stereotactically guided directional vacuum-assisted biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 172:1405–1407CrossRefPubMed
14.
Deshaies I, Provencher L, Jacob S, Cote G, Robert J, Desbiens C et al (2011) Factors associated with upgrading to malignancy at surgery of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed on core biopsy. Breast 20:50–55CrossRefPubMed
15.
Houssami N, Ciatto S, Ellis I, Ambrogetti D (2007) Underestimation of malignancy of breast core-needle biopsy: concepts and precise overall and category-specific estimates. Cancer 109:487–495CrossRefPubMed
16.
Jackman RJ, Nowels KW, Rodriguez-Soto J, Marzoni FA Jr, Finkelstein SI, Shepard MJ (1999) Stereotactic, automated, large-core needle biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions: false-negative and histologic underestimation rates after long-term follow-up. Radiology 210:799–805CrossRefPubMed
17.
Kettritz U, Rotter K, Schreer I, Murauer M, Schulz-Wendtland R, Peter D et al (2004) Stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in 2874 patients: a multicenter study. Cancer 100:245–251CrossRefPubMed
18.
Teng-Swan Ho J, Tan PH, Hee SW, Su-Lin Wong J (2008) Underestimation of malignancy of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed on 11-gauge stereotactically guided mammotome breast biopsy: an Asian breast screen experience. Breast 17:401–406CrossRefPubMed
19.
Ancona A, Capodieci M, Galiano A, Mangieri F, Lorusso V, Gatta G (2011) Vacuum-assisted biopsy diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia and patient management. Radiol Med 116:276–291CrossRefPubMed
20.
Bedei L, Falcini F, Sanna PA, Casadei Giunchi D, Innocenti MP, Vignutelli P et al (2006) Atypical ductal hyperplasia of the breast: the controversial management of a borderline lesion: experience of 47 cases diagnosed at vacuum-assisted biopsy. Breast 15:196–202CrossRefPubMed
21.
Gumus H, Mills P, Gumus M, Fish D, Jones S, Jones P et al (2013) Factors that impact the upgrading of atypical ductal hyperplasia. Diagn Interv Radiol 19:91–96PubMed
22.
Londero V, Zuiani C, Linda A, Battigelli L, Brondani G, Bazzocchi M (2011) Borderline breast lesions: comparison of malignancy underestimation rates with 14-gauge core needle biopsy versus 11-gauge vacuum-assisted device. Eur Radiol 21:1200–1206CrossRefPubMed
23.
Pandelidis S, Heiland D, Jones D, Stough K, Trapeni J, Suliman Y (2003) Accuracy of 11-gauge vacuum-assisted core biopsy of mammographic breast lesions. Ann Surg Oncol 10:43–47CrossRefPubMed
24.
Polom K, Murawa D, Kurzawa P, Michalak M, Murawa P (2012) Underestimation of cancer in case of diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) by vacuum assisted core needle biopsy. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 17:129–133CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Sohn V, Keylock J, Arthurs Z, Wilson A, Herbert G, Perry J et al (2007) Breast papillomas in the era of percutaneous needle biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol 14:2979–2984CrossRefPubMed
26.
Forgeard C, Benchaib M, Guerin N, Thiesse P, Mignotte H, Faure C et al (2008) Is surgical biopsy mandatory in case of atypical ductal hyperplasia on 11-gauge core needle biopsy? A retrospective study of 300 patients. Am J Surg 196:339–345CrossRefPubMed
27.
Kohr JR, Eby PR, Allison KH, DeMartini WB, Gutierrez RL, Peacock S et al (2010) Risk of upgrade of atypical ductal hyperplasia after stereotactic breast biopsy: effects of number of foci and complete removal of calcifications. Radiology 255:723–730CrossRefPubMed
28.
McGhan LJ, Pockaj BA, Wasif N, Giurescu ME, McCullough AE, Gray RJ (2012) A typical ductal hyperplasia on core biopsy: an automatic trigger for excisional biopsy? Ann Surg Oncol 19:3264–3269CrossRefPubMed
29.
Villa A, Tagliafico A, Chiesa F, Chiaramondia M, Friedman D, Calabrese M (2011) Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy performed on suspicious clustered microcalcifications: could patients without residual microcalcifications be managed conservatively? AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:1012–1018CrossRefPubMed
30.
Hsu HH, Yu JC, Hsu GC, Yu CP, Chang WC, Tung HJ et al (2012) Atypical ductal hyperplasia of the breast diagnosed by ultrasonographically guided core needle biopsy. Ultraschall Med 33:447–454CrossRefPubMed
31.
Youk JH, Kim EK, Kim MJ (2009) Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at sonographically guided 14-gauge core needle biopsy of breast mass. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:1135–1141CrossRefPubMed
32.
Chae BJ, Lee A, Song BJ, Jung SS (2009) Predictive factors for breast cancer in patients diagnosed atypical ductal hyperplasia at core needle biopsy. World J Surg Oncol 7:77CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Grady I, Gorsuch H, Wilburn-Bailey S (2005) Ultrasound-guided, vacuum-assisted, percutaneous excision of breast lesions: an accurate technique in the diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia. J Am Coll Surg 201:14–17CrossRefPubMed
34.
Jang M, Cho N, Moon WK, Park JS, Seong MH, Park IA (2008) Underestimation of atypical ductal hyperplasia at sonographically guided core biopsy of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:1347–1351CrossRefPubMed
35.
Lourenco AP, Khalil H, Sanford M, Donegan L (2014) High-risk lesions at MRI-guided breast biopsy: frequency and rate of underestimation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:682–686CrossRefPubMed
36.
Hartmann LC, Radisky DC, Frost MH, Santen RJ, Vierkant RA, Benetti LL et al (2014) Understanding the premalignant potential of atypical hyperplasia through its natural history: a longitudinal cohort study. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 7:211–217CrossRef
37.
Liberman L, Holland AE, Marjan D, Murray MP, Bartella L, Morris EA et al (2007) Underestimation of atypical ductal hyperplasia at MRI-guided 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:684–690CrossRefPubMed
38.
Ely KA, Carter BA, Jensen RA, Simpson JF, Page DL (2001) Core biopsy of the breast with atypical ductal hyperplasia: a probabilistic approach to reporting. Am J Surg Pathol 25:1017–1021CrossRefPubMed
39.
Sanders ME, Schuyler PA, Dupont WD, Page DL (2005) The natural history of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in women treated by biopsy only revealed over 30 years of long-term follow-up. Cancer 103:2481–2484CrossRefPubMed
40.
Sneige N, Lim SC, Whitman GJ, Krishnamurthy S, Sahin AA, Smith TL et al (2003) Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosis by directional vacuum-assisted stereotactic biopsy of breast microcalcifications. Considerations for surgical excision. Am J Clin Pathol 119:248–253CrossRefPubMed
41.
42.
Tavassoli FA DP (2003) (ed). Pathology and genetics of tumours of the breast and female genital organs
43.
Chivukula M, Bhargava R, Tseng G, Dabbs DJ (2009) Clinicopathologic implications of “flat epithelial atypia” in core needle biopsy specimens of the breast. Am J Clin Pathol 131:802–808CrossRefPubMed
44.
Darvishian F, Singh B, Simsir A, Ye W, Cangiarella JF (2009) Atypia on breast core needle biopsies: reproducibility and significance. Ann Clin Lab Sci 39:270–276PubMed
45.
Ingegnoli A, d’Aloia C, Frattaruolo A, Pallavera L, Martella E, Crisi G et al (2010) Flat epithelial atypia and atypical ductal hyperplasia: carcinoma underestimation rate. Breast J 16:55–59CrossRefPubMed
46.
Kunju LP, Kleer CG (2007) Significance of flat epithelial atypia on mammotome core needle biopsy: should it be excised? Hum Pathol 38:35–41CrossRefPubMed
47.
Piubello Q, Parisi A, Eccher A, Barbazeni G, Franchini Z, Iannucci A (2009) Flat epithelial atypia on core needle biopsy: which is the right management? Am J Surg Pathol 33:1078–1084CrossRefPubMed
48.
Senetta R, Campanino PP, Mariscotti G, Garberoglio S, Daniele L, Pennecchi F et al (2009) Columnar cell lesions associated with breast calcifications on vacuum-assisted core biopsies: clinical, radiographic, and histological correlations. Mod Pathol 22:762–769PubMed
49.
Bodian CA, Perzin KH, Lattes R (1996) Lobular neoplasia. long term risk of breast cancer and relation to other factors. Cancer 78:1024–1034CrossRefPubMed
50.
D’Alfonso TM, Wang K, Chiu YL, Shin SJ (2013) Pathologic upgrade rates on subsequent excision when lobular carcinoma in situ is the primary diagnosis in the needle core biopsy with special attention to the radiographic target. Arch Pathol Lab Med 137:927–935CrossRefPubMed
51.
Haagensen DE Jr, Mazoujian G, Dilley WG, Pedersen CE, Kister SJ, Wells SA Jr (1979) Breast gross cystic disease fluid analysis. I. isolation and radioimmunoassay for a major component protein. J Natl Cancer Inst 62:239–247PubMed
52.
Ottesen GL, Graversen HP, Blichert-Toft M, Christensen IJ, Andersen JA (2000) Carcinoma in situ of the female breast. 10 year follow-up results of a prospective nationwide study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 62:197–210CrossRefPubMed
53.
Page DL, Kidd TE Jr, Dupont WD, Simpson JF, Rogers LW (1991) Lobular neoplasia of the breast: higher risk for subsequent invasive cancer predicted by more extensive disease. Hum Pathol 22:1232–1239CrossRefPubMed
54.
Liberman L, Bracero N, Vuolo MA, Dershaw DD, Morris EA, Abramson AF et al (1999) Percutaneous large-core biopsy of papillary breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 172:331–337CrossRefPubMed
55.
Mercado CL, Hamele-Bena D, Singer C, Koenigsberg T, Pile-Spellman E, Higgins H et al (2001) Papillary lesions of the breast: evaluation with stereotactic directional vacuum-assisted biopsy. Radiology 221:650–655CrossRefPubMed
56.
Philpotts LE, Shaheen NA, Jain KS, Carter D, Lee CH (2000) Uncommon high-risk lesions of the breast diagnosed at stereotactic core-needle biopsy: clinical importance. Radiology 216:831–837CrossRefPubMed
57.
Reynolds HE (2000) Core needle biopsy of challenging benign breast conditions: a comprehensive literature review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174:1245–1250CrossRefPubMed
58.
Chang JM, Moon WK, Cho N, Han W, Noh DY, Park IA et al (2011) Management of ultrasonographically detected benign papillomas of the breast at core needle biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:723–729CrossRefPubMed
59.
Bianchi S, Bendinelli B, Saladino V, Vezzosi V, Brancato B, Nori J et al (2015) Non-malignant breast papillary lesions - b3 diagnosed on ultrasound–guided 14-gauge needle core biopsy: analysis of 114 cases from a single institution and review of the literature. Pathol Oncol Res 21:535–546CrossRefPubMed
60.
Kim MJ, Kim SI, Youk JH, Moon HJ, Kwak JY, Park BW et al (2011) The diagnosis of non-malignant papillary lesions of the breast: comparison of ultrasound-guided automated gun biopsy and vacuum-assisted removal. Clin Radiol 66:530–535CrossRefPubMed
61.
Chang JM, Han W, Moon WK, Cho N, Noh DY, Park IA et al (2011) Papillary lesions initially diagnosed at ultrasound-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: rate of malignancy based on subsequent surgical excision. Ann Surg Oncol 18:2506–2514CrossRefPubMed
62.
Mosier AD, Keylock J, Smith DV (2013) Benign papillomas diagnosed on large-gauge vacuum-assisted core needle biopsy which span < 1.5 cm do not need surgical excision. Breast J. 19:611–617CrossRefPubMed
63.
Youk JH, Kim MJ, Son EJ, Kwak JY, Kim EK (2012) US-guided vacuum-assisted percutaneous excision for management of benign papilloma without atypia diagnosed at US-guided 14-gauge core needle biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol 19:922–928CrossRefPubMed
64.
Wyss P, Varga Z, Rossle M, Rageth CJ (2014) Papillary lesions of the breast: outcomes of 156 patients managed without excisional biopsy. Breast J 20:394–401CrossRefPubMed
65.
Yamaguchi R, Tanaka M, Tse GM, Yamaguchi M, Terasaki H, Hirai Y et al (2015) Management of breast papillary lesions diagnosed in ultrasound-guided vacuum-assisted and core needle biopsies. Histopathology 66:565–576CrossRefPubMed
66.
Buchanan EB (1995) Cystosarcoma phyllodes and its surgical management. Am surg 61:350–355PubMed
67.
Yang X, Kandil D, Cosar EF, Khan A (2014) Fibroepithelial tumors of the breast: pathologic and immunohistochemical features and molecular mechanisms. Arch Pathol Lab Med 138:25–36CrossRefPubMed
68.
Krishnamurthy S, Ashfaq R, Shin HJ, Sneige N (2000) Distinction of phyllodes tumor from fibroadenoma: a reappraisal of an old problem. Cancer 90:342–349CrossRefPubMed
69.
70.
Bode MK, Rissanen T, Apaja-Sarkkinen M (2007) Ultrasonography and core needle biopsy in the differential diagnosis of fibroadenoma and tumor phyllodes. Acta Radiol 48:708–713CrossRefPubMed
71.
Youn I, Choi SH, Moon HJ, Kim MJ, Kim EK (2013) Phyllodes tumors of the breast: ultrasonographic findings and diagnostic performance of ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy. Ultrasound Med Biol 39:987–992CrossRefPubMed
72.
Choi J, Koo JS (2012) Comparative study of histological features between core needle biopsy and surgical excision in phyllodes tumor. Pathol Int 62:120–126CrossRefPubMed
73.
Youk JH, Kim H, Kim EK, Son EJ, Kim MJ, Kim JA (2015) Phyllodes tumor diagnosed after ultrasound-guided vacuum-assisted excision: should it be followed by surgical excision? Ultrasound Med Biol 41:741–747CrossRefPubMed
74.
Ouyang Q, Li S, Tan C, Zeng Y, Zhu L, Song E et al (2016) Benign phyllodes tumor of the breast diagnosed after ultrasound-guided vacuum-assisted biopsy: surgical excision or wait-and-watch? Ann Surg Oncol 23:1129–1134CrossRefPubMed
75.
Park HL, Kwon SH, Chang SY, Huh JY, Kim JY, Shim JY et al (2012) Long-term follow-up result of benign phyllodes tumor of the breast diagnosed and excised by ultrasound-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. J breast cancer 15:224–229CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
76.
Zurrida S, Bartoli C, Galimberti V, Squicciarini P, Delledonne V, Veronesi P et al (1992) Which therapy for unexpected phyllode tumour of the breast? Eur J Cancer 28:654–657CrossRefPubMed
77.
Kim S, Kim JY (2013) Kim do H, Jung WH, Koo JS. Analysis of phyllodes tumor recurrence according to the histologic grade. Breast Cancer Res Treat 141:353–363CrossRefPubMed
78.
McCarthy E, Kavanagh J, O’Donoghue Y, McCormack E, D’Arcy C, O’Keeffe SA (2014) Phyllodes tumours of the breast: radiological presentation, management and follow-up. Br J Radiol 87:20140239CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
79.
Barrio AV, Clark BD, Goldberg JI, Hoque LW, Bernik SF, Flynn LW et al (2007) Clinicopathologic features and long-term outcomes of 293 phyllodes tumors of the breast. Ann Surg Oncol 14:2961–2970CrossRefPubMed
80.
Chaney AW, Pollack A, McNeese MD, Zagars GK, Pisters PW, Pollock RE et al (2000) Primary treatment of cystosarcoma phyllodes of the breast. Cancer 89:1502–1511CrossRefPubMed
81.
Gradishar WJ, Anderson BO, Balassanian R, Blair SL, Burstein HJ, Cyr A et al (2016) Invasive Breast Cancer Version 1.2016, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 14:324–354
82.
Douglas-Jones AG, Denson JL, Cox AC, Harries IB, Stevens G (2007) Radial scar lesions of the breast diagnosed by needle core biopsy: analysis of cases containing occult malignancy. J Clin Pathol 60:295–298CrossRefPubMed
83.
Farshid G, Rush G (2004) Assessment of 142 stellate lesions with imaging features suggestive of radial scar discovered during population-based screening for breast cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 28:1626–1631CrossRefPubMed
84.
Fasih T, Jain M, Shrimankar J, Staunton M, Hubbard J, Griffith CD (2005) All radial scars/complex sclerosing lesions seen on breast screening mammograms should be excised. Eur J Surg Oncol 31:1125–1128CrossRefPubMed
85.
Linda A, Zuiani C, Furlan A, Londero V, Girometti R, Machin P et al (2010) Radial scars without atypia diagnosed at imaging-guided needle biopsy: how often is associated malignancy found at subsequent surgical excision, and do mammography and sonography predict which lesions are malignant? Am J Roentgenol 194:1146–1151CrossRef
86.
Orel SG, Evers K, Yeh IT, Troupin RH (1992) Radial scar with microcalcifications: radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 183:479–482CrossRefPubMed
87.
Sloane JP, Mayers MM (1993) Carcinoma and atypical hyperplasia in radial scars and complex sclerosing lesions: importance of lesion size and patient age. Histopathology 23:225–231CrossRefPubMed
88.
Berg JC, Visscher DW, Vierkant RA, Pankratz VS, Maloney SD, Lewis JT et al (2008) Breast cancer risk in women with radial scars in benign breast biopsies. Breast Cancer Res Treat 108:167–174CrossRefPubMed
89.
Jacobs TW, Byrne C, Colditz G, Connolly JL, Schnitt SJ (1999) Radial scars in benign breast-biopsy specimens and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 340:430–436CrossRefPubMed
90.
Sanders ME, Page DL, Simpson JF, Schuyler PA, Dale Plummer W, Dupont WD (2006) Interdependence of radial scar and proliferative disease with respect to invasive breast carcinoma risk in patients with benign breast biopsies. Cancer 106:1453–1461CrossRefPubMed
91.
Sagara Y, Mallory MA, Wong S, Aydogan F, DeSantis S, Barry WT et al (2015) Survival benefit of breast surgery for low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ: a population-based cohort study. JAMA Surg 150:739–745CrossRefPubMed
92.
Ryser MD, Worni M, Turner EL, Marks JR, Durrett R (2016) Hwang ES. A Computational Risk Analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst, Outcomes of Active Surveillance for Ductal Carcinoma in Situ, p 108
93.
Francis A, Fallowfield L, Rea D (2015) The LORIS Trial: addressing overtreatment of ductal carcinoma in situ. Clin oncol (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)) 27:6–8CrossRef
94.
Kuerer HM (2015) Ductal carcinoma in situ: treatment or active surveillance? Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 15:777–785CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
First International Consensus Conference on lesions of uncertain malignant potential in the breast (B3 lesions)
Authors
Christoph J. Rageth
Elizabeth AM O’Flynn
Christopher Comstock
Claudia Kurtz
Rahel Kubik
Helmut Madjar
Domenico Lepori
Gert Kampmann
Alexander Mundinger
Astrid Baege
Thomas Decker
Stefanie Hosch
Christoph Tausch
Jean-François Delaloye
Elisabeth Morris
Zsuzsanna Varga
Publication date
01-09-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 2/2016
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-3935-4

Other articles of this Issue 2/2016

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2/2016 Go to the issue

Epidemiology

Vigorous physical activity and risk of breast cancer in the African American breast cancer epidemiology and risk consortium

Epidemiology

Long-term chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy among breast cancer survivors: prevalence, risk factors, and fall risk

Preclinical study

Implementation of next-generation sequencing for molecular diagnosis of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer highlights its genetic heterogeneity

Epidemiology

Resting heart rate as a prognostic factor for mortality in patients with breast cancer

Epidemiology

Effect of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors use on endocrine therapy adherence and breast cancer mortality: a population-based study

Preclinical study

St Gallen 2015 subtyping of luminal breast cancers: impact of different Ki67-based proliferation assessment methods
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits