An update on the management of breast atypical ductal hyperplasia

British Journal of Radiology - Tập 93 Số 1110 - 2020
Simone Schiaffino1, Andrea Cozzi2, Francesco Sardanelli2,1
1Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Via Morandi 30, 20097, San Donato Milanese, Italy
2Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Mangiagalli 31, 20133 Milano, Italy

Tóm tắt

Among lesions with uncertain malignant potential found at percutaneous breast biopsy, atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) carries both the highest risk of underestimation and the closest and most pathologist-dependent differential diagnosis with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), matching the latter’s features save for size only. ADH is therefore routinely surgically excised, but single-centre studies with limited sample size found low rates of upgrade to invasive cancer or DCIS. This suggests the possibility of surveillance over surgery in selected subgroups, considering the 2% threshold allowing for follow-up according to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. A recent meta-analysis on 6458 lesions counters this approach, confirming that, surgically excised or managed with surveillance, ADH carries a 29% and 5% upgrade rate, respectively, invariably higher than 2% even in subgroups considering biopsy guidance and technique, needle calibre, apparent complete lesion removal. The high heterogeneity (I  2 = 80%) found in this meta-analysis reaffirmed the need to synthesise evidence from systematic reviews to achieve generalisable results, fit for guidelines development. Limited tissue sampling at percutaneous biopsy intrinsically hampers the prediction of ADH-associated malignancy. This prediction could be improved by using contrast-enhanced breast imaging and applying artificial intelligence on both pathology and imaging results, allowing for overtreatment reduction.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

van Breest Smallenburg, 2013, Trends in breast biopsies for abnormalities detected at screening mammography: a population-based study in the Netherlands, Br J Cancer, 109, 242, 10.1038/bjc.2013.253

Sharma, 2017, The B3 conundrum-the radiologists' perspective, Br J Radiol, 90, 10.1259/bjr.20160595

Forester, 2019, High risk (B3) breast lesions: what is the incidence of malignancy for individual lesion subtypes? A systematic review and meta-analysis, Eur J Surg Oncol, 45, 519, 10.1016/j.ejso.2018.12.008

Elmore, 2016, Variability in pathologists' interpretations of individual breast biopsy slides: a population perspective, Ann Intern Med, 164, 10.7326/M15-0964

Brem, 2020, Management of breast atypical ductal hyperplasia: now and the future, Radiology, 294, 87, 10.1148/radiol.2019192192

Rageth, 2019, Second international consensus conference on lesions of uncertain malignant potential in the breast (B3 lesions), Breast Cancer Res Treat, 174, 279, 10.1007/s10549-018-05071-1

Sardanelli, 2018, Expert review of breast pathology in borderline lesions, JAMA Oncol, 4, 1325, 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.1953

Rageth, 2016, First international consensus conference on lesions of uncertain malignant potential in the breast (B3 lesions), Breast Cancer Res Treat, 159, 203, 10.1007/s10549-016-3935-4

Bertani, 2020, Atypical ductal hyperplasia: breast DCE-MRI can be used to reduce unnecessary open surgical excision, Eur Radiol, 10.1007/s00330-020-06701-3

Bicchierai, 2020, Follow-up of B3 breast lesions without residual microcalcifications post vacuum-assisted biopsy, can contrast-enhanced digital mammography help?, Breast J, 26, 299, 10.1111/tbj.13598

Schiaffino, 2020, Upgrade rate of percutaneously diagnosed pure atypical ductal hyperplasia: systematic review and meta-analysis of 6458 lesions, Radiology, 294, 76, 10.1148/radiol.2019190748

D’Orsi, 2013, ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System

Schiaffino, 2018, Vacuum assisted breast biopsy (VAB) excision of subcentimeter microcalcifications as an alternative to open biopsy for atypical ductal hyperplasia, Br J Radiol, 91, 10.1259/bjr.20180003

Halpern, 2002, The continuing unethical conduct of underpowered clinical trials, JAMA, 288, 358, 10.1001/jama.288.3.358

Bellomo, 2009, Why we should be wary of single-center trials, Crit Care Med, 37, 3114, 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181bc7bd5

Tosteson, 2018, Second opinion strategies in breast pathology: a decision analysis addressing over-treatment, under-treatment, and care costs, Breast Cancer Res Treat, 167, 195, 10.1007/s10549-017-4432-0

Bahl, 2018, High-Risk breast lesions: a machine learning model to predict pathologic upgrade and reduce unnecessary surgical excision, Radiology, 286, 810, 10.1148/radiol.2017170549

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

British Journal of Radiology

Tập 93 Số 1110

Thông tin tác giả