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

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 10/2012

01-10-2012 | Breast Oncology

Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia on Core Biopsy: An Automatic Trigger for Excisional Biopsy?

Authors: Lee J. McGhan, MB, Barbara A. Pockaj, MD, Nabil Wasif, MD, Marina E. Giurescu, MD, Ann E. McCullough, Richard J. Gray, MD

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 10/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

Excisional biopsy is currently recommended for atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) diagnosed on core needle breast biopsy (CNB), due to risk of upstaging to invasive or in situ carcinoma (DCIS). The study goal was to identify patients who may potentially forego excisional biopsy if the risk of upstaging is low.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective review of patients diagnosed with ADH on CNB who underwent excisional biopsy at one institution (5/2000–5/2011). We evaluated the upstaging rate and clinicopathologic factors associated with increased upstaging risk.

Results

A total of 114 cases of ADH were diagnosed on CNB. The median patient age was 64 years. On mammography, a mass/density/area of distortion was present in 23 % of cases; calcifications were present in 77 %. Most biopsies (79 %) were performed stereotactically. Twenty lesions (18 %) were upstaged to infiltrating carcinoma (5 %) or DCIS (13 %). Residual ADH was present in 43 biopsies (38 %). On univariate analysis, significant variables associated with upstaging included age >50 years, a mass lesion on mammography, and shorter length of biopsy core (p < 0.05). No patient ≤50 years of age was upstaged. Three patients who were not upstaged (3 %) developed ipsilateral disease (2 DCIS and 1 infiltrating ductal carcinoma) at a median time of 37 months.

Conclusions

The rate of upstaging when ADH is diagnosed on CNB at our institution is 18 %, and routine excisional biopsy is currently recommended for all patients. However, patients <50 years old with focal atypia only and no residual calcifications postbiopsy may represent a low-risk group who could potentially avoid excisional biopsy.
Literature
1.
Nguyen CV, Albarracin CT, Whitman GJ, Lopez A, Sneige N. Atypical ductal hyperplasia in directional vacuum-assisted biopsy of breast microcalcifications: considerations for surgical excision. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(3):752–61.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Winchester DJ, Bernstein JR, Jeske JM, et al. Upstaging of atypical ductal hyperplasia after vacuum-assisted 11-gauge stereotactic core needle biopsy. Arch Surg. 2003;138(6):619–22.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Polat AK, Kanbour-Shakir A, Andacoglu O, Polat AV, Johnson R, Bonaventura M, Soran A. Atypical hyperplasia on core biopsy: is further surgery needed? Am J Med Sci. 2012;344(1):28–31.
4.
Jain RK, Mehta R, Dimitrov R, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia: interobserver and intraobserver variability. Mod Pathol. 2011;24(7):917–23.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Darvishian F, Singh B, Simsir A, Ye W, Cangiarella JF. Atypia on breast core needle biopsies: reproducibility and significance. Ann Clin Lab Sci. 2009;39(3):270–6.PubMed
6.
Kohr JR, Eby PR, Allison KH, DeMartini WB, Gutierrez RL, Peacock S, Lehman CD. Risk of upgrade of atypical ductal hyperplasia after stereotactic breast biopsy: effects of number of foci and complete removal of calcifications. Radiology. 2010;255(3):723–30.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Ingegnoli A, d’Aloia C, Frattaruolo A, Pallavera L, Martella E, Crisi G, Zompatori M. Flat epithelial atypia and atypical ductal hyperplasia: carcinoma underestimation rate. Breast J. 2010;16(1):55–9.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Ely KA, Carter BA, Jensen RA, Simpson JF, Page DL. Core biopsy of the breast with atypical ductal hyperplasia: a probabilistic approach to reporting. Am J Surg Pathol. 2001;25(8):1017–21.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Bendifallah S, Defert S, Chabbert-Buffet N, et al. Scoring to predict the possibility of upgrades to malignancy in atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed by an 11-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy device: an external validation study. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48(1):30–6.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW, Rados MS. Atypical hyperplastic lesions of the female breast. A long-term follow-up study. Cancer. 1985;55(11):2698–708.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Page DL, Rogers LW. Combined histologic and cytologic criteria for the diagnosis of mammary atypical ductal hyperplasia. Hum Pathol. 1992;23(10):1095–7.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Eby PR, Ochsner JE, DeMartini WB, Allison KH, Peacock S, Lehman CD. Is surgical excision necessary for focal atypical ductal hyperplasia found at stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy? Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15(11):3232–8.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Chae BJ, Lee A, Song BJ, Jung SS. Predictive factors for breast cancer in patients diagnosed atypical ductal hyperplasia at core needle biopsy. World J Surg Oncol. 2009;7:77.
14.
Deshaies I, Provencher L, Jacob S, et al. Factors associated with upgrading to malignancy at surgery of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed on core biopsy. Breast. 2011;20(1):50–5.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Londero V, Zuiani C, Linda A, Battigelli L, Brondani G, Bazzocchi M. Borderline breast lesions: comparison of malignancy underestimation rates with 14-gauge core needle biopsy versus 11-gauge vacuum-assisted device. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(6):1200–6.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Arora S, Moezzi M, Kim U, Menes TS. Is surgical excision necessary for atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed with 8-gauge stereotactic biopsy? Breast J. 2009;15(6):673–4.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Forgeard C, Benchaib M, Guerin N, et al. 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. 2008;196(3):339–45.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Villa A, Tagliafico A, Chiesa F, Chiaramondia M, Friedman D, Calabrese M. 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. 2011;197(4):1012–8.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Sneige N, Lim SC, Whitman GJ, Krishnamurthy S, Sahin AA, Smith TL, Stelling CB. Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosis by directional vacuum-assisted stereotactic biopsy of breast microcalcifications. Considerations for surgical excision. Am J Clin Pathol. 2003;119(2):248–53.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Wagoner MJ, Laronga C, Acs G. Extent and histologic pattern of atypical ductal hyperplasia present on core needle biopsy specimens of the breast can predict ductal carcinoma in situ in subsequent excision. Am J Clin Pathol. 2009;131(1):112–21.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Allison KH, Eby PR, Kohr J, DeMartini WB, Lehman CD. Atypical ductal hyperplasia on vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: suspicion for ductal carcinoma in situ can stratify patients at high risk for upgrade. Hum Pathol. 2011;42(1):41–50.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia on Core Biopsy: An Automatic Trigger for Excisional Biopsy?
Authors
Lee J. McGhan, MB
Barbara A. Pockaj, MD
Nabil Wasif, MD
Marina E. Giurescu, MD
Ann E. McCullough
Richard J. Gray, MD
Publication date
01-10-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 10/2012
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-012-2575-0

Other articles of this Issue 10/2012

Annals of Surgical Oncology 10/2012 Go to the issue

Breast Oncology

Intraoperative Imprint Cytology and Frozen Section Pathology for Margin Assessment in Breast Conservation Surgery: A Systematic Review

Breast Oncology

Comparison of Molecular Subtyping with BluePrint, MammaPrint, and TargetPrint to Local Clinical Subtyping in Breast Cancer Patients

Breast Oncology

Autologous Inferior Dermal Sling (Autoderm) with Concomitant Skin-Envelope Reduction Mastectomy: An Excellent Surgical Choice for Women with Macromastia and Clinically Significant Ptosis

Breast Oncology

Changing Behavior in Clinical Practice in Response to the ACOSOG Z0011 Trial: A Survey of the American Society of Breast Surgeons

Breast Oncology

Editorial: Sentinel Node Biopsy for Breast Cancer: Past, Present, and Future

Breast Oncology

Y-V Oncoplastic Wound Repair of Mastectomy Dog-Ear Deformity