Advertisement

Role of one-pass breast lesion excision system in complete excision of high-risk breast lesions with atypia expressed as clusters of microcalcifications

  • Alexandra Christou
  • Vassilis Koutoulidis
  • Dimitra Koulocheri
  • Evangelia Panourgias
  • Afrodite Nonni
  • Constantinos G. Zografos
  • George C. Zografos
Breast
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To assess the role of the breast lesion excision system (BLES) in complete removal of clusters of microcalcifications found on mammogram proved histologically to be high-risk lesions with cell atypia.

Methods and materials

Three hundred ninety-four consecutive women (mean age 58.5 years, range 39–78 years) with 400 clusters of suspicious microcalcifications underwent stereotactic biopsy using the intact BLES device between January 2014 and January 2016. All cases proved histologically to be high-risk lesions were subsequently assessed for complete removal. The underestimation rate was also assessed.

Results

Thirty-eight out of 400 (9.5%) lesions were high-risk lesions with atypia with mean size 7.63 mm (st. dev. = 4.03 mm) which was within the size that the BLES needle can excise (20 mm). Four (10.5%) papillomas with atypia, 14 (36.8%) cases with flat epithelial atypia (FEA), 10 (26.3%) cases with lobular intraepithelial neoplasia (LIN-LIN 1, LIN 2), 8 (21.2%) with atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) and 2 (5.3%) cases with mucocele-like lesions (MLL) with atypia were found. Twenty-nine out of 38 lesions had subsequent surgery. Complete excision was achieved in 23/29 lesions (79.3%). No underestimation was found. Two-year mammographic stability was found in all lesions. Non-parametric statistical analysis showed no other significant predictive factor for complete excision apart from the distance of the lesions from the specimen margins (p = 0.031 Mann-Whitney test).

Conclusion

One-pass BLES intact biopsy technique is a safe method of complete removal of high-risk atypical lesions with high accuracy rates for certain histologies and could be potentially used as an alternative excision method to diagnostic surgery in selected cases.

Key Points

• Breast lesion excision system (BLES) is an image-guided biopsy technique that uses radiofrequency to remove an intact piece of tissue including the target breast neoplasm.

• Breast lesion excision system (BLES) under stereotactic guidance is able to accurately biopsy high-risk breast lesions expressed mammographically as clusters of suspicious microcalcifications.

• BLES under stereotactic guidance is an accurate technique for en bloc excision of selected cases of small clusters of suspicious microcalcifications proved to be high-risk lesions with histopathologically disease-free margins of excision.

Keywords

Breast neoplasms Image-guided biopsy Margins of excision 

Abbreviations

ADH

Atypical ductal hyperplasia

AUC

Area under the curve

BI-RADS

Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System

BLES

Breast lesion excision system

CB

Core biopsy

CC

Craniocaudal

DCIS

Ductal carcinoma in situ

FEA

Flat epithelial atypia

F-up

Follow-up

LIN

Lobular intraepithelial neoplasia

LIN 1

Lobular intraepithelial neoplasia type 1

LIN 2

Lobular intraepithelial neoplasia type 2

MLL

Mucocele-like lesion

MLO

Mediolateral

mm

Millimetres

MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging

RF

Radiofrequency

ROC

Receiver operating characteristic

st. dev.

Standard deviation

VAB

Vacuum-assisted biopsy

Notes

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is George C Zografos, Professor of Surgery Hippokration Hospital, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens gzografo@med.uoa.gr.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

Georgios Dimakopoulos kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• retrospective

• diagnostic or prognostic study

• performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    Adams AL (2010) Flat epithelial atypia: a review of current concepts. Open Breast Cancer J 2:90–94Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Javitt MC (2012) Diagnosis and management of high-risk breast lesions: Aristotle’s dilemma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198:246–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Muttarak M, Lerttumnongtum P, Chaiwun B, Peh WC (2008) Spectrum of papillary lesions of the breast: clinical, imaging, and pathologic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:700–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Leibman AJ, Staeger CN, Charney DA (2006) Mucocelelike lesions of the breast: mammographic findings with pathologic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:1356–1360Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burbank F, Parker SH, Fogerty TJ (1996) Stereotactic breast biopsy: improved tissue harvesting with the Mammotome. Am Surg 62:738–744PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Parker SH, Burbank F (1996) A practical approach to minimally invasive breast biopsy. Radiology 200:11–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fahrbach K, Sledge I, Cella C, Linz H, Ross SD (2006) A comparison of the accuracy of two minimally invasive breast biopsy methods: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 274:63–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yu YH, Liang C, Yuan XZ (2010) Diagnostic value of vacuum-assisted breast biopsy for breast carcinoma: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Breast Cancer Res Treat 120(2):469–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Houssami N, Ciatto S, Ellis I, Ambrogetti D (2006) Underestimation of malignancy of breast core needle biopsy. Cancer 109:487–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hwang H, Barke LD, Mendelson EB, Susnik B (2008) Atypical lobular hyperplasia and classic lobular carcinoma in situ in core biopsy specimens: routine excision is not necessary. Mod Pathol 21:1208–1216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Forgeard C, Benchaib M, Guerin N 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 196:339–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rudin AV, Hoskin TL, Fahy A et al (2017) Flat epithelial atypia on core biopsy and upgrade to cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 24(12):3549–3558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wiratkapun C, Keeratitragoon T, Lertsithichai P, Chanplakorn N (2013) Upgrading rate of papillary breast lesions diagnosed by core-needle biopsy. Diagn Interv Radiol 19:371–376PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Seely JM, Verma R, Kielar A et al (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):146–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sutton B, Davion S, Feldman M, Siziopikou K, Mendelson E, Sullivan M (2012) Mucocele-like lesions diagnosed on breast core biopsy: assessment of upgrade rate and need for surgical excision. Am J Clin Pathol 138(6):783–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lipman M, Chambers A, Umphrey HR (2018) Current management of high-risk breast lesions. Curr Radiol Rep 6:7.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40134-018-0268-6
  17. 17.
    Rogers LW (2005) Breast biopsy: a pathologist’s perspective on biopsy acquisition techniques and devices with mammographic–pathologic correlation. Semin Breast Dis 8:127–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sie A, Bryan DC, Gaines V et al (2006) Multicenter evaluation of the breast lesion excision system, a percutaneous, vacuum-assisted, intact-specimen breast biopsy device. Cancer 107(5):945–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Killebrew LK, Oneson RH (2006) Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of a vacuum assisted percutaneous intact specimen sampling device to a vacuum-assisted core needle sampling device for breast biopsy: initial experience. Breast J 12(4):302–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sklair-Levy M, Rayman S, Yosepovich A, Zbar A, Goitein D, Zippel D (2017) The intact breast lesion excision system as a therapeutic device for selected benign breast lesions. Breast J 24(3):304–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Allen SD, Osin P, Nerurkar A (2014) The radiological excision of high risk and malignant lesions using the INTACT breast lesion excision system. A case series with an imaging follow up of at least 5 years. Eur J Surg Oncol 40(7):824–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Milos RI, Bernathova M, Baltzer PA et al (2017) The breast lesion excision system (BLES) under stereotactic guidance cannot be used as a therapeutic tool in the excision of small areas of microcalcifications in the breast. Eur J Radiol 93:252–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Serora JY, Lesieurb B, Scheuer-Niroa B, Zeratc L, Rouzierb R, Uzanb S (2012) Predictive factors for complete excision and underestimation of one-pass en bloc excision of non-palpable breast lesions with the Intact® breast lesion excision system. Eur J Radiol 81:719–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Medjhoul A, Canale S, Mathieu MC et al (2013) Breast lesion excision sample (BLES biopsy) combining stereotactic biopsy and radiofrequency: is it a safe and accurate procedure in case of BIRADS 4 and 5 breast lesions? Breast J 19(6):590–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Al-Harethee W, Theodoropoulos G, Filippakis GM et al (2013) Complications of percutaneous stereotactic vacuum assisted breast biopsy system utilizing radio frequency. Eur J Radiol 82(4):623–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Al-Harethee WA, Kalles V, Papapanagiotou I et al (2015) Thermal damage of the specimen during breast biopsy with the use of the Breast Lesion Excision System: does it affect diagnosis? Breast Cancer 22(1):84–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Darling ML, Smith DN, Lester SC (2000) Atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ as revealed by large-core needle breast biopsy: results of surgical excision. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175(5):1341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    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(1):43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Page DL, Rogers LW (1992) Combined histologic and cytologic criteria for the diagnosis of mammary atypical ductal hyperplasia. Hum Pathol 23(10):1095–1097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L (2008) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition–summary document. Ann Oncol 19:614–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rageth CJ, O’Flynn EA, Comstock C et al (2016) First International Consensus Conference on lesions of uncertain malignant potential in the breast (B3 lesions). Breast Cancer Res Treat 159:203–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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 22:1232–1239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Londero V, Zuiani C, Linda A, Girometti R, Bazzocchi M, Sardanelli F (2012) High-risk breast lesions at imaging-guided needle biopsy: usefulness of MRI for treatment decision. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:240–W250Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexandra Christou
    • 1
  • Vassilis Koutoulidis
    • 2
  • Dimitra Koulocheri
    • 3
  • Evangelia Panourgias
    • 4
  • Afrodite Nonni
    • 5
  • Constantinos G. Zografos
    • 6
  • George C. Zografos
    • 7
  1. 1.Brighton and Sussex University NHS HospitalsBrightonUK
  2. 2.1st Department of Radiology Areteion Hospital, School of MedicineNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyBreast Unit Hippokration HospitalAthensGreece
  4. 4.1st Department of Radiology, School of MedicineNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens Areteion HospitalAthensGreece
  5. 5.1st Department of Pathology, School of MedicineNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece
  6. 6.Nikaia General HospitalAthensGreece
  7. 7.Hippokration Hospital, School of MedicineNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations