J Breast Cancer.  2008 Mar;11(1):36-39. 10.4048/jbc.2008.11.1.36.

Predictive Factors of Residual Invasive Breast Cancer after Core Biopsy for Ductal Carcinoma in Situ

Affiliations
  • 1Department of Surgery, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea. ssjung@catholic.ac.kr
  • 2Department of Pathology, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.

Abstract

PURPOSE: We wanted to identify the clinicopathologic factors that predict the presence of invasive cancer after core biopsy for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).
METHODS
The patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ on core biopsy (stereotactic or ultrasound) from February 2003 to May 2007 were identified by retrospectively reviewing the collected data. We analyzed the demographic data, the characteristics on the imaging studies and the histologic features on DCIS. We assessed the factors that included age, the physical examination, the radiologic findings, the biopsy method, and the histologic findings related to the presence of invasive cancer after core biopsy.
RESULTS
Fifty-one patients were diagnosed with DCIS after core biopsy. Of the 51 patients, 19 patients had invasive carcinoma diagnosed on final excision. The factors that correlated with invasion were the biopsy method, a palpable mass and a mammographic mass, regardless of calcification. A high nuclear grade, the comedo type, age, and the tumor size were not related to presence of invasive cancer.
CONCLUSION
A mass lesion on mammography, a palpable mass, and 14G core needle biopsy were significant predictors of invasion in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. Surgeons always recognize the possibility of invasive cancer in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ on the core needle biopsy.

Keyword

Core biopsy; Mammotome biopsy; Ductal carcinoma in situ; Invasive cancer

MeSH Terms

Biopsy
Biopsy, Large-Core Needle
Breast
Breast Neoplasms
Carcinoma, Ductal
Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating
Humans
Mammography
Needles
Physical Examination
Retrospective Studies

Reference

1. Korea Central Cancer Registry. 2002 Annual report of the Korea Central Cancer Registry. 2003. Gwacheon: Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea.
2. Emster VL, Ballard-Barbash R, Barlow WE, Zheng Y, Weaver DL, Cutter G, et al. Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002. 94:1546–1554.
Article
3. Fentiman IS. The dilemmaof in situ carcinoma of the breast. Int J Clin Pract. 2001. 55:680–683.
4. Wahedna Y, Evans AJ, Pinder SE, Ellis IO, Blamey RW, Geraghty JG. Mammographic size of ductal carcinoma in situ does not predict the presence of an invasive focus. Eur J Cancer. 2001. 37:459–462.
Article
5. Dillon MF, McDermott EW, Quinn CM, O'Doherty A, O'Higgins N, Hill AD. Predictors of invasive disease in breast cancer when core biopsy demonstrates DCIS only. J Surg Oncol. 2006. 93:559–563.
Article
6. Lee CH, Carter D, Philpotts LE, Couce ME, Horvath LJ, Lange RC, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed with stereotactic core needle biopsy: can invasion be predicted. Radiology. 2000. 217:466–470.
Article
7. Rutstein LA, Johnson RR, Poller WR, Dabbs D, Groblewski J, Rakitt T, et al. Predictors of residual invasive disease after core needle biopsy diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast J. 2007. 13:251–257.
Article
8. Verkooijen HM, Peeters PH, Buskens E, Koot VC, Borel Rinkes IH, Mali WP, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of large-core needle biopsy for nonpalpable breast disease: a meta-analysis. Br J Cancer. 2000. 82:1017–1021.
Article
9. Leifland K, Lagerstedt U, Svane G. Comparison of stereotactic fine needle aspiration cytology and core needle biopsy in 522 non-palpable breast lesions. Acta Radiol. 2003. 44:387–391.
Article
10. Crowe JP, Rim A, Patrick RJ, Rybicki LA, Grundfest-Broniatowski SF, Kim JA, et al. Does core needle breast biopsy accurately reflect breast pathology? Surgery. 2003. 134:523–528.
Article
11. Jackman RJ, Burbank F, Parker SH, Evans WP 3rd, Lechner MC, Richardson TR, et al. Stereotactic breast biopsy of nonpalpable lesions: determinants of ductal carcinoma in situ underestimation rates. Radiology. 2001. 218:497–502.
Article
12. Yen TW, Hunt KK, Ross MI, Mirza NQ, Babiera GV, Meric-Bernstam F, et al. Predictors of invasive breast cancer in patients with an initial diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ: a guide to selective use of sentinel lymph node biopsy in management of ductal carcinoma in situ. J Am Coll Surg. 2005. 200:516–526.
Article
13. Houssami N, Ciatto S, Ellis I, Ambrogetti D. Underestimation of malignancy of breast core-needle biopsy: concepts and precise overall and category-specific estimates. Cancer. 2007. 109:487–495.
Article
14. Liberman L, Smolkin JH, Dershaw DD, Morris EA, Abramson AF, Rosen PP. Calcification retrieval at stereotactic, 11-gauge, directional, vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Radiology. 1998. 208:251–260.
Article
15. Silverstein MJ, Poller DN, Waisman JR, Colburn WJ, Barth A, Gierson ED, et al. Prognostic classification of breast ductal carcinoma-in-situ. Lancet. 1995. 345:1154–1157.
Article
16. Fisher ER, Costantino J, Fisher B, Palekar AS, Redmond C, Mamounas E. Pathologic findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project (NSABP) Protocol B-17. Intraductal carcinoma (ductal carcinoma in situ). The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Collaborating Investigators. Cancer. 1995. 75:1310–1319.
Article
17. Hoorntje LE, Schipper ME, Peeters PH, Bellot F, Storm RK, Borel Rinkes IH. The finding of invasive cancer after a preoperative diagnosis of ductal carcinoma-in-situ: causes of ductal carcinoma-in-situ underestimated with stereotactic 14-gauge needle biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2003. 10:748–753.
Article
18. Bagnall MJ, Evans AJ, Wilson AR, Pinder SE, Denley H, Geraghty JG, et al. Predicting invasion in mammographically detected microcalcification. Clin Radiol. 2001. 56:828–832.
Article
19. Renshaw AA. Predicting invasion in the excision specimen from breast core needle biopsy specimens with only ductal carcinoma in situ. Arch Path Lab Med. 2002. 126:39–41.
Article
20. Huo L, Sneige N, Hunt KK, Albarracin CT, Lopez A, Resetkova E. Predictors of invasion in patients with core-needle biopsy-diagnosed ductal carcinoma in situ and recommendations for a selective approach to sentinel lymph node biopsy in ductal carcinoma in situ. Cancer. 2006. 107:1760–1768.
Article
21. Lagios MD, Margolin FR, Westdahl PR, Rose MR. Mammographically detected duct carcinoma in situ. Frequency of local recurrence following tylectomy and prognostic effect of nuclear grade on local recurrence. Cancer. 1989. 63:618–624.
Article
22. King TA, Farr GH, Cederbom GJ, Smetherman DH, Bolton JS, Stolier AJ, et al. A mass on breast imaging predicts coexisting invasive carcinoma in patients with a core biopsy diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ. Am Surg. 2001. 67:907–912.
23. Hoda SA, Rosen PP. Practical considerations in the pathologic diagnosis of needle core biopsies of breast. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002. 118:101–108.
Article
Full Text Links
  • JBC
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr