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
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2/2019

Open Access 01-04-2019 | Review

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

Authors: Christoph J. Rageth, Elizabeth A. M. O’Flynn, Katja Pinker, Rahel A. Kubik-Huch, Alexander Mundinger, Thomas Decker, Christoph Tausch, Florian Dammann, Pascal A. Baltzer, Eva Maria Fallenberg, Maria P. Foschini, Sophie Dellas, Michael Knauer, Caroline Malhaire, Martin Sonnenschein, Andreas Boos, Elisabeth Morris, Zsuzsanna Varga

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 2/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The second International Consensus Conference on B3 lesions was held in Zurich, Switzerland, in March 2018, organized by the International Breast Ultrasound School to re-evaluate the consensus recommendations.

Methods

This study (1) evaluated how management recommendations of the first Zurich Consensus Conference of 2016 on B3 lesions had influenced daily practice and (2) reviewed current literature towards recommendations to biopsy.

Results

In 2018, the consensus recommendations for management of B3 lesions remained almost unchanged: For flat epithelial atypia (FEA), classical lobular neoplasia (LN), papillary lesions (PL) and radial scars (RS) diagnosed on core-needle biopsy (CNB) or vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB), excision by VAB in preference to open surgery, and for atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) and phyllodes tumors (PT) diagnosed at VAB or CNB, first-line open surgical excision (OE) with follow-up surveillance imaging for 5 years. Analyzing the Database of the Swiss Minimally Invasive Breast Biopsies (MIBB) with more than 30,000 procedures recorded, there was a significant increase in recommending more frequent surveillance of LN [65% in 2018 vs. 51% in 2016 (p = 0.004)], FEA (72% in 2018 vs. 62% in 2016 (p = 0.005)), and PL [(76% in 2018 vs. 70% in 2016 (p = 0.04)] diagnosed on VAB. A trend to more frequent surveillance was also noted also for RS [77% in 2018 vs. 67% in 2016 (p = 0.07)].

Conclusions

Minimally invasive management of B3 lesions (except ADH and PT) with VAB continues to be appropriate as an alternative to first-line OE in most cases, but with more frequent surveillance, especially for LN.
Literature
1.
Bianchi S, Caini S, Renne G, Cassano E, Ambrogetti D, Cattani MG, Saguatti G, Chiaramondia M, Bellotti E, Bottiglieri R et al (2011) Positive predictive value for malignancy on surgical excision of breast lesions of uncertain malignant potential (B3) diagnosed by stereotactic vacuum-assisted needle core biopsy (VANCB): a large multi-institutional study in Italy. Breast 20(3):264–270CrossRefPubMed
2.
O’Flynn EA, Wilson AR, Michell MJ (2010) Image-guided breast biopsy: state-of-the-art. Clin Radiol 65(4):259–270CrossRefPubMed
3.
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(3):487–495CrossRefPubMed
4.
Renshaw AA, Gould EW (2016) Long term clinical follow-up of atypical ductal hyperplasia and lobular carcinoma in situ in breast core needle biopsies. Pathology 48(1):25–29CrossRefPubMed
5.
Strachan C, Horgan K, Millican-Slater RA, Shaaban AM, Sharma N (2016) Outcome of a new patient pathway for managing B3 breast lesions by vacuum-assisted biopsy: time to change current UK practice? J Clin Pathol 69(3):248–254CrossRefPubMed
6.
El-Sayed ME, Rakha EA, Reed J, Lee AH, Evans AJ, Ellis IO (2008) Predictive value of needle core biopsy diagnoses of lesions of uncertain malignant potential (B3) in abnormalities detected by mammographic screening. Histopathology 53(6):650–657CrossRefPubMed
7.
Rageth CJ, O’Flynn EA, Comstock C, Kurtz C, Kubik R, Madjar H, Lepori D, Kampmann G, Mundinger A, Baege A et al (2016) First International Consensus Conference on lesions of uncertain malignant potential in the breast (B3 lesions). Breast Cancer Res Treat 159(2):203–213CrossRef
8.
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(4):614–622CrossRef
9.
Wells CA, Amendoeira I, Bellocq JP, Bianchi S, Boecker W, Borisch B, Bruun Rasmussen B, Callagy GM, Chmielik E, Cordoba A, Cserni G, Decker T, DeGaetano J, Drijkoningen M, Ellis IO, Faverly DR, Foschini MP, Frkovic-Grazio S, Grabau D, Heikkilä P, Iacovou E, Jacquemier J, Kaya H, Kulka J, Lacerda M, Liepniece-Karele I, Martinez-Penuela J, Quinn CM, Rank Ft, Regitnig P, Reiner A, Sapino A, Tot T, Van Diest PJ, Varga Z, Wesseling J, Zolota V, Zozaya-Alvarez E (2012) S2: Pathology update. Quality assurance guidelines for pathology. In: Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L (eds) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition/ Supplements. European Commission, Office for Official Publications of the European Union, Luxembourg, pp 73–120
10.
Ahn HS, Jang M, Kim SM, Yun BL, Kim SW, Kang EY, Park SY (2016) Diagnosis of columnar cell lesions and atypical ductal hyperplasia by ultrasound-guided core biopsy: findings associated with underestimation of breast carcinoma. Ultrasound Med Biol 42(7):1457–1463CrossRefPubMed
11.
Badan GM, Roveda Junior D, Piato S, Fleury Ede F, Campos MS, Pecci CA, Ferreira FA, D’Avila C (2016) Diagnostic underestimation of atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ at percutaneous core needle and vacuum-assisted biopsies of the breast in a Brazilian reference institution. Radiol Bras 49(1):6–11CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Co M, Kwong A, Shek T (2018) Factors affecting the under-diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed by core needle biopsies: a 10-year retrospective study and review of the literature. Int J Surg (Lond Engl) 49:27–31CrossRef
13.
Collins LC, Aroner SA, Connolly JL, Colditz GA, Schnitt SJ, Tamimi RM (2016) Breast cancer risk by extent and type of atypical hyperplasia: an update from the Nurses’ Health Studies. Cancer 122(4):515–520CrossRefPubMed
14.
Degnim AC, Dupont WD, Radisky DC, Vierkant RA, Frank RD, Frost MH, Winham SJ, Sanders ME, Smith JR, Page DL et al (2016) Extent of atypical hyperplasia stratifies breast cancer risk in 2 independent cohorts of women. Cancer 122(19):2971–2978CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Donaldson AR, McCarthy C, Goraya S, Pederson HJ, Sturgis CD, Grobmyer SR, Calhoun BC (2018) Breast cancer risk associated with atypical hyperplasia and lobular carcinoma in situ initially diagnosed on core-needle biopsy. Cancer 124(3):459–465CrossRefPubMed
16.
Khoury T, Li Z, Sanati S, Desouki MM, Chen X, Wang D, Liu S, Karabakhtsian R, Kumar P, Reig B (2016) The risk of upgrade for atypical ductal hyperplasia detected on magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy: a study of 100 cases from four academic institutions. Histopathology 68(5):713–721CrossRefPubMed
17.
Latronico A, Nicosia L, Faggian A, Abbate F, Penco S, Bozzini A, Cannataci C, Mazzarol G, Cassano E (2018) Atypical ductal hyperplasia: our experience in the management and long term clinical follow-up in 71 patients. Breast 37:1–5CrossRefPubMed
18.
Menen RS, Ganesan N, Bevers T, Ying J, Coyne R, Lane D, Albarracin C, Bedrosian I (2017) Long-Term safety of observation in selected women following core biopsy diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia. Ann Surg Oncol 24(1):70–76CrossRefPubMed
19.
Menes TS, Kerlikowske K, Lange J, Jaffer S, Rosenberg R, Miglioretti DL (2017) Subsequent breast cancer risk following diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia on needle biopsy. JAMA Oncol 3(1):36–41CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Mesurolle B, Perez JC, Azzumea F, Lemercier E, Xie X, Aldis A, Omeroglu A, Meterissian S (2014) Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at sonographically guided core needle biopsy: frequency, final surgical outcome, and factors associated with underestimation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202(6):1389–1394CrossRefPubMed
21.
Pena A, Shah SS, Fazzio RT, Hoskin TL, Brahmbhatt RD, Hieken TJ, Jakub JW, Boughey JC, Visscher DW, Degnim AC (2017) Multivariate model to identify women at low risk of cancer upgrade after a core needle biopsy diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia. Breast Cancer Res Treat 164(2):295–304CrossRefPubMed
22.
Yu CC, Ueng SH, Cheung YC, Shen SC, Kuo WL, Tsai HP, Lo YF, Chen SC (2015) Predictors of underestimation of malignancy after image-guided core needle biopsy diagnosis of flat epithelial atypia or atypical ductal hyperplasia. Breast J 21(3):224–232CrossRefPubMed
23.
Acott AA, Mancino AT (2016) Flat epithelial atypia on core needle biopsy, must we surgically excise? Am J Surg 212(6):1211–1213CrossRefPubMed
24.
Berry JS, Trappey AF, Vreeland TJ, Pattyn AR, Clifton GT, Berry EA, Schneble EJ, Kirkpatrick AD, Saenger JS, Peoples GE (2016) Analysis of clinical and pathologic factors of pure, flat epithelial atypia on core needle biopsy to aid in the decision of excision or observation. J Cancer 7(1):1–6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Chan PMY, Chotai N, Lai ES, Sin PY, Chen J, Lu SQ, Goh MH, Chong BK, Ho BCS, Tan EY (2018) Majority of flat epithelial atypia diagnosed on biopsy do not require surgical excision. Breast 37:13–17CrossRefPubMed
26.
Dialani V, Venkataraman S, Frieling G, Schnitt SJ, Mehta TS (2014) Does isolated flat epithelial atypia on vacuum-assisted breast core biopsy require surgical excision? Breast J 20(6):606–614CrossRefPubMed
27.
Lamb LR, Bahl M, Gadd MA, Lehman CD: Flat epithelial atypia: upgrade rates and risk-stratification approach to support informed decision making. J Am Coll Surg 2017
28.
McCroskey Z, Sneige N, Herman CR, Miller RA, Venta LA, Ro JY, Schwartz MR, Ayala AG: Flat epithelial atypia in directional vacuum-assisted biopsy of breast microcalcifications: surgical excision may not be necessary. Mod Pathol 2018
29.
Rudin AV, Hoskin TL, Fahy A, Farrell AM, Nassar A, Ghosh K, Degnim AC (2017) Flat epithelial atypia on core biopsy and upgrade to cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 24(12):3549–3558CrossRefPubMed
30.
Samples LS, Rendi MH, Frederick PD, Allison KH, Nelson HD, Morgan TR, Weaver DL, Elmore JG (2017) Surgical implications and variability in the use of the flat epithelial atypia diagnosis on breast biopsy specimens. Breast 34:34–43CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Schiaffino S, Gristina L, Villa A, Tosto S, Monetti F, Carli F, Calabrese M (2018) Flat epithelial atypia: conservative management of patients without residual microcalcifications post-vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Br J Radiol 91(1081):20170484CrossRefPubMed
32.
Yamashita Y, Ichihara S, Moritani S, Yoon HS, Yamaguchi M (2016) Does flat epithelial atypia have rounder nuclei than columnar cell change/hyperplasia? A morphometric approach to columnar cell lesions of the breast. Virchows Arch 468(6):663–673CrossRefPubMed
33.
Dabbs DJ, Schnitt SJ, Geyer FC, Weigelt B, Baehner FL, Decker T, Eusebi V, Fox SB, Ichihara S, Lakhani SR et al (2013) Lobular neoplasia of the breast revisited with emphasis on the role of E-cadherin immunohistochemistry. Am J Surg Pathol 37(7):e1–e11CrossRefPubMed
34.
Fasola CE, Chen JJ, Jensen KC, Allison KH, Horst KC (2018) Characteristics and clinical outcomes of pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast. Breast J 24(1):66–69CrossRefPubMed
35.
Flanagan MR, Rendi MH, Calhoun KE, Anderson BO, Javid SH (2015) Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ: radiologic-pathologic features and clinical management. Ann Surg Oncol 22(13):4263–4269CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
36.
Sullivan ME, Khan SA, Sullu Y, Schiller C, Susnik B (2010) Lobular carcinoma in situ variants in breast cores: potential for misdiagnosis, upgrade rates at surgical excision, and practical implications. Arch Pathol Lab Med 134(7):1024–1028PubMed
37.
38.
Haagensen CD, Lane N, Lattes R, Bodian C (1978) Lobular neoplasia (so-called lobular carcinoma in situ) of the breast. Cancer 42(2):737–769CrossRefPubMed
39.
Fisher ER, Land SR, Fisher B, Mamounas E, Gilarski L, Wolmark N (2004) Pathologic findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project: twelve-year observations concerning lobular carcinoma in situ. Cancer 100(2):238–244CrossRefPubMed
40.
King TA, Pilewskie M, Muhsen S, Patil S, Mautner SK, Park A, Oskar S, Guerini-Rocco E, Boafo C, Gooch JC et al (2015) Lobular carcinoma in situ: a 29-year longitudinal experience evaluating clinicopathologic features and breast cancer risk. J Clin Oncol 33(33):3945–3952CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Ansquer Y, Delaney S, Santulli P, Salomon L, Carbonne B, Salmon R (2010) Risk of invasive breast cancer after lobular intra-epithelial neoplasia: review of the literature. Eur J Surg Oncol 36(7):604–609CrossRefPubMed
42.
Chuba PJ, Hamre MR, Yap J, Severson RK, Lucas D, Shamsa F, Aref A (2005) Bilateral risk for subsequent breast cancer after lobular carcinoma-in-situ: analysis of surveillance, epidemiology, and end results data. J Clin Oncol 23(24):5534–5541CrossRefPubMed
43.
Blair SL, Emerson DK, Kulkarni S, Hwang ES, Malcarne V, Ollila DW (2013) Breast surgeon’s survey: no consensus for surgical treatment of pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ. Breast J 19(1):116–118CrossRefPubMed
44.
Bodian CA, Perzin KH, Lattes R (1996) Lobular neoplasia. Long term risk of breast cancer and relation to other factors. Cancer 78(5):1024–1034CrossRefPubMed
45.
Cavallaro U, Dejana E (2011) Adhesion molecule signalling: not always a sticky business. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 12(3):189–197CrossRefPubMed
46.
Chen YY, Hwang ES, Roy R, DeVries S, Anderson J, Wa C, Fitzgibbons PL, Jacobs TW, MacGrogan G, Peterse H et al (2009) Genetic and phenotypic characteristics of pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast. Am J Surg Pathol 33(11):1683–1694CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
47.
Susnik B, Day D, Abeln E, Bowman T, Krueger J, Swenson KK, Tsai ML, Bretzke ML, Lillemoe TJ (2016) Surgical outcomes of lobular neoplasia diagnosed in core biopsy: prospective study of 316 cases. Clin Breast Cancer 16(6):507–513CrossRefPubMed
48.
Muller KE, Roberts E, Zhao L, Jorns JM (2018) Isolated atypical lobular hyperplasia diagnosed on breast biopsy: low upgrade rate on subsequent excision with long-term follow-up. Arch Pathol Lab Med 142(3):391–395CrossRefPubMed
49.
Szynglarewicz B, Kasprzak P, Halon A, Matkowski R (2017) Lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast - correlation between minimally invasive biopsy and final pathology. Archiv Med Sci 13(3):617–623CrossRef
50.
Calhoun BC, Collie AM, Lott-Limbach AA, Udoji EN, Sieck LR, Booth CN, Downs-Kelly E (2016) Lobular neoplasia diagnosed on breast Core biopsy: frequency of carcinoma on excision and implications for management. Ann Diagn Pathol 25:20–25CrossRefPubMed
51.
Fives C, O’Neill CJ, Murphy R, Corrigan MA, O’Sullivan MJ, Feeley L, Bennett MW, O’Connell F, Browne TJ (2016) When pathological and radiological correlation is achieved, excision of fibroadenoma with lobular neoplasia on core biopsy is not warranted. Breast 30:125–129CrossRefPubMed
52.
Mao K, Yang Y, Wu W, Liang S, Deng H, Liu J (2017) Risk of second breast cancers after lobular carcinoma in situ according to hormone receptor status. PLoS ONE 12(5):e0176417CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
53.
Maxwell AJ, Clements K, Dodwell DJ, Evans AJ, Francis A, Hussain M, Morris J, Pinder SE, Sawyer EJ, Thomas J et al (2016) The radiological features, diagnosis and management of screen-detected lobular neoplasia of the breast: Findings from the Sloane Project. Breast 27:109–115CrossRefPubMed
54.
Nakhlis F, Gilmore L, Gelman R, Bedrosian I, Ludwig K, Hwang ES, Willey S, Hudis C, Iglehart JD, Lawler E et al (2016) Incidence of adjacent synchronous invasive carcinoma and/or ductal carcinoma In-situ in patients with lobular neoplasia on core biopsy: results from a prospective multi-institutional registry (TBCRC 020). Ann Surg Oncol 23(3):722–728CrossRefPubMed
55.
Schmidt H, Arditi B, Wooster M, Weltz C, Margolies L, Bleiweiss I, Port E, Jaffer S: Observation versus excision of lobular neoplasia on core needle biopsy of the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2018
56.
Sen LQ, Berg WA, Hooley RJ, Carter GJ, Desouki MM, Sumkin JH (2016) Core breast biopsies showing lobular carcinoma in situ should be excised and surveillance is reasonable for atypical lobular hyperplasia. AJR Am J Roentgenol 207(5):1132–1145CrossRefPubMed
57.
Xie ZM, Sun J, Hu ZY, Wu YP, Liu P, Tang J, Xiao XS, Wei WD, Wang X, Xie XM et al (2017) Survival outcomes of patients with lobular carcinoma in situ who underwent bilateral mastectomy or partial mastectomy. Eur J Cancer 82:6–15CrossRefPubMed
58.
Ahn SK, Han W, Moon HG, Kim MK, Noh DY, Jung BW, Kim SW, Ko E (2018) Management of benign papilloma without atypia diagnosed at ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy: scoring system for predicting malignancy. Eur J Surg Oncol 44(1):53–58CrossRefPubMed
59.
Armes JE, Galbraith C, Gray J, Taylor K (2017) The outcome of papillary lesions of the breast diagnosed by standard core needle biopsy within a BreastScreen Australia service. Pathology 49(3):267–270CrossRefPubMed
60.
Bianchi S, Bendinelli B, Saladino V, Vezzosi V, Brancato B, Nori J, Palli D (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(3):535–546CrossRefPubMed
61.
Khan S, Diaz A, Archer KJ, Lehman RR, Mullins T, Cardenosa G, Bear HD: Papillary lesions of the breast: To excise or observe? Breast J 2017
62.
Kim SY, Kim EK, Lee HS, Kim MJ, Yoon JH, Koo JS, Moon HJ (2016) Asymptomatic benign papilloma without atypia diagnosed at ultrasonography-guided 14-gauge core needle biopsy: which subgroup can be managed by observation? Ann Surg Oncol 23(6):1860–1866CrossRefPubMed
63.
Ko D, Kang E, Park SY, Kim SM, Jang M, Yun B, Chae S, Jang Y, Kim HJ, Kim SW et al (2017) The management strategy of benign solitary intraductal papilloma on breast core biopsy. Clin Breast Cancer 17(5):367–372CrossRefPubMed
64.
Moon SM, Jung HK, Ko KH, Kim Y, Lee KS (2016) Management of clinically and mammographically occult benign papillary lesions diagnosed at ultrasound-guided 14-gauge breast core needle biopsy. J Ultrasound Med 35(11):2325–2332CrossRefPubMed
65.
Niinikoski L, Hukkinen K, Leidenius MHK, Stahls A, Meretoja TJ (2018) Breast Lesion Excision System in the diagnosis and treatment of intraductal papillomas: a feasibility study. Eur J Surg Oncol 44(1):59–66CrossRefPubMed
66.
Pareja F, Corben AD, Brennan SB, Murray MP, Bowser ZL, Jakate K, Sebastiano C, Morrow M, Morris EA, Brogi E (2016) Breast intraductal papillomas without atypia in radiologic-pathologic concordant core-needle biopsies: rate of upgrade to carcinoma at excision. Cancer 122(18):2819–2827CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
67.
Seely JM, Verma R, Kielar A, Smyth KR, Hack K, Taljaard M, Gravel D, Ellison E (2017) Benign papillomas of the breast diagnosed on large-gauge vacuum biopsy compared with 14 gauge core needle biopsy-do they require surgical excision? Breast J 23(2):146–153CrossRefPubMed
68.
Tatarian T, Sokas C, Rufail M, Lazar M, Malhotra S, Palazzo JP, Hsu E, Tsangaris T, Berger AC (2016) Intraductal papilloma with benign pathology on breast core biopsy: to excise or not? Ann Surg Oncol 23(8):2501–2507CrossRefPubMed
69.
Tran HT, Mursleen A, Mirpour S, Ghanem O, Farha MJ (2017) Papillary breast lesions: association with malignancy and upgrade rates on surgical excision. Am Surg 83(11):1294–1297PubMed
70.
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(4):394–401CrossRefPubMed
71.
Yamaguchi R, Tanaka M, Tse GM, Yamaguchi M, Terasaki H, Hirai Y, Nonaka Y, Morita M, Yokoyama T, Kanomata N et al (2015) Management of breast papillary lesions diagnosed in ultrasound-guided vacuum-assisted and core needle biopsies. Histopathology 66(4):565–576CrossRefPubMed
72.
Yang Y, Fan Z, Liu Y, He Y, Ouyang T (2018) Is surgical excision necessary in breast papillomas 10 mm or smaller at core biopsy. Oncol Res Treat 41(1–2):29–34CrossRefPubMed
73.
Co M, Chen C, Tsang JY, Tse G, Kwong A (2017) Mammary phyllodes tumour: a 15-year multicentre clinical review. J Clin Pathol 71:493–497CrossRefPubMed
74.
Ouyang Q, Li S, Tan C, Zeng Y, Zhu L, Song E, Chen K, Su F (2016) Benign phyllodes tumor of the breast diagnosed after ultrasound-guided vacuum-assisted biopsy: surgical excision or wait-and-watch? Ann Surg Oncol 23(4):1129–1134CrossRefPubMed
75.
Sevinc AI, Aksoy SO, Guray Durak M, Balci P (2018) Is the extent of surgical resection important in patient outcome in benign and borderline phyllodes tumors of the breast? Turk J Med Sci 48(1):28–33CrossRefPubMed
76.
Shaaban M, Barthelmes L (2017) Benign phyllodes tumours of the breast: (over) treatment of margins: a literature review. Eur J Surg Oncol 43(7):1186–1190CrossRefPubMed
77.
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(3):741–747CrossRefPubMed
78.
Zhou ZR, Wang CC, Sun XJ, Yang ZZ, Yu XL, Guo XM (2016) Diagnostic performance of core needle biopsy in identifying breast phyllodes tumors. J Thorac Dis 8(11):3139–3151CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
79.
Hamperl H (1975) Radial scars (scarring) and obliterating mastopathy (author’s transl). Virchows Archiv A 369(1):55–68CrossRef
80.
Eusebi V, Grassigli A, Grosso F (1976) [Breast sclero-elastotic focal lesions simulating infiltrating carcinoma]. Pathologica 68(985–986):507–518PubMed
81.
Donaldson AR, Sieck L, Booth CN, Calhoun BC (2016) Radial scars diagnosed on breast core biopsy: frequency of atypia and carcinoma on excision and implications for management. Breast 30:201–207CrossRefPubMed
82.
Ferreira AI, Borges S, Sousa A, Ribeiro C, Mesquita A, Martins PC, Peyroteo M, Coimbra N, Leal C, Reis P et al (2017) Radial scar of the breast: is it possible to avoid surgery? Eur J Surg Oncol 43(7):1265–1272CrossRefPubMed
83.
Hou Y, Hooda S, Li Z (2016) Surgical excision outcome after radial scar without atypical proliferative lesion on breast core needle biopsy: a single institutional analysis. Ann Diagn Pathol 21:35–38CrossRefPubMed
84.
Kalife ET, Lourenco AP, Baird GL, Wang Y (2016) Clinical and radiologic follow-up study for biopsy diagnosis of radial scar/radial sclerosing lesion without other atypia. Breast J 22(6):637–644CrossRefPubMed
85.
Kim EM, Hankins A, Cassity J, McDonald D, White B, Rowberry R, Dutton S, Snyder C (2016) Isolated radial scar diagnosis by core-needle biopsy: Is surgical excision necessary? SpringerPlus 5:398CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
86.
Leong RY, Kohli MK, Zeizafoun N, Liang A, Tartter PI (2016) Radial scar at percutaneous breast biopsy that does not require surgery. J Am Coll Surg 223(5):712–716CrossRefPubMed
87.
Li Z, Ranade A, Zhao C (2016) Pathologic findings of follow-up surgical excision for radial scar on breast core needle biopsy. Hum Pathol 48:76–80CrossRefPubMed
88.
Miller CL, West JA, Bettini AC, Koerner FC, Gudewicz TM, Freer PE, Coopey SB, Gadd MA, Hughes KS, Smith BL et al (2014) Surgical excision of radial scars diagnosed by core biopsy may help predict future risk of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 145(2):331–338CrossRefPubMed
89.
Nassar A, Conners AL, Celik B, Jenkins SM, Smith CY, Hieken TJ (2015) Radial scar/complex sclerosing lesions: a clinicopathologic correlation study from a single institution. Ann Diagn Pathol 19(1):24–28CrossRefPubMed
90.
Park VY, Kim EK, Kim MJ, Yoon JH, Moon HJ (2016) Mammographically occult asymptomatic radial scars/complex sclerosing lesions at ultrasonography-guided core needle biopsy: follow-up can be recommended. Ultrasound Med Biol 42(10):2367–2371CrossRefPubMed
91.
Bahl M, Barzilay R, Yedidia AB, Locascio NJ, Yu L, Lehman CD: High-risk breast lesions: a machine learning model to predict pathologic upgrade and reduce unnecessary surgical excision. Radiology 2017:170549
92.
Shaffer K (2018) Can machine learning be used to generate a model to improve management of high-risk breast lesions? Radiology 286(3):819–821CrossRefPubMed
93.
NHS (2016) NHS Breast Screening Programme. Clinical guidance for breast cancer screening assessment. NHSBSP publication number 49, Fourth edition November 2016
94.
Thill M, Liedtke C, Muller V, Janni W, Schmidt M (2018) AGO recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with advanced and metastatic breast cancer: update 2018. Breast Care (Basel) 13(3):209–215CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Second International Consensus Conference on lesions of uncertain malignant potential in the breast (B3 lesions)
Authors
Christoph J. Rageth
Elizabeth A. M. O’Flynn
Katja Pinker
Rahel A. Kubik-Huch
Alexander Mundinger
Thomas Decker
Christoph Tausch
Florian Dammann
Pascal A. Baltzer
Eva Maria Fallenberg
Maria P. Foschini
Sophie Dellas
Michael Knauer
Caroline Malhaire
Martin Sonnenschein
Andreas Boos
Elisabeth Morris
Zsuzsanna Varga
Publication date
01-04-2019
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 2/2019
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-05071-1

Other articles of this Issue 2/2019

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2/2019 Go to the issue

Epidemiology

Significant inter- and intra-laboratory variation in grading of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a nationwide study of 4901 patients in the Netherlands

Epidemiology

Prevalence of breast cancer-related risk factors in underweight premenopausal women: the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey IV–VI

Preclinical study

Overexpression of the cancer stem cell marker CD133 confers a poor prognosis in invasive breast cancer

Clinical trial

Combination of different types of elastography in downgrading ultrasound Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System category 4a breast lesions

Epidemiology

Examination of a paradox: recurrent metastatic breast cancer incidence decline without improved distant disease survival: 1990–2011

Review

Peer support interventions for breast cancer patients: a systematic review
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