Core-Needle Biopsy: Radiologic-Pathologic Correlation

  • Isabel Alvarado-Cabrero
  • Eloisa Asia Sanchez-Vivar


Percutaneous core-needle biopsies comprise the most common type of breast specimens in current practice. The indications for such biopsies include palpable and nonpalpable breast lesions. In most cases, the result of the procedure provides a definitive diagnosis or at least provides information that is used to plan the further management of the patient. Imaging-pathology correlation is of critical importance in imaging-guided breast biopsies to detect such a possible sampling error and avoid a delay in diagnosis. Pathologists should be familiar with the imaging features of various breast lesions and be able to appropriately correlate imaging findings with pathologic results after a core-needle biopsy. The purpose of this chapter is to review derived categories and corresponding management for an imaging-pathology correlation after performing an imaging-guided biopsy, and to illustrate the selected images for each category.


Breast lesions Core-needle biopsy Imaging-pathology correlation 


  1. 1.
    Bilous M. Breast core needle biopsy: issues and controversies. Mod Pathol. 2010;23:S36–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tamaki K, Sasano H, Ishida T, Miyashita M, Takeda M, Amari M, et al. Comparison of core needle biopsy (CNB) and surgical specimen for accurate preoperative evaluation of ER, PgR and HER2 status of breast cancer patients. Cancer Sci. 2010;101:2024–79.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Uy GB, Laudico AV, Carnate JM, Lim FG, Fernandez AM, Rivera RR, et al. Breast cancer hormone receptor assay results of core needle biopsy and modified radical mastectomy specimens from the same patients. Clin Breast Cancer. 2010;10:154–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Liberman L. Percutaneous image-guided core breast biopsy. Radiol Clin N Am. 2002;40:483–500.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rogers LW. Breast biopsy: a pathologist’s perspective on biopsy acquisition techniques and devices with mammographic-pathologic correlation. Semin Breast Dis. 2006;8:127–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lieu D. Breast imaging for interventional pathologists. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013;137:100–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sickles EA, Miglioretti DL, Ballard-Barbash R, Geller BM, Leung JW, Rosenberg RD, et al. Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography. Radiology. 2005;235:775–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Candelaria RP, Hwang L, Bouchard RR, Whitman GJ. Breast ultrasound: current concepts. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2013;34:213–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yamaguchi K, Schacht D, Senett CA, Newstead GM, Imaizumi T, Irie H, et al. Decision making for breast lesions initially detected at contrast-enhanced breast MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201:1376–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Spruill L. Benign mimickers of malignant breast lesions. Semin Diagn Pathol. 2016;33:2–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Taskin F, Köseoğlu K, Unsal A, Erkuş M, Ozbaş S, Karaman C. Sclerosing adenosis of the breast: radiologic appearance and efficiency of core needle biopsy. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2011;17:311–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Inoue S, Inoue M, Kawasaki T, Takahashi H, Inoue A, Maruyama T, et al. Six cases showing radial scar/complex sclerosing lesions of the breast detected by breast cancer screening. Breast Cancer. 2008;15:247–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1773–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan BK, Humphrey L, et al. Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Prevention Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:727–37.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Giess CS, Chikarmane SA, Sippo DA, Birdwell RL. Clinical utility of breast MRI in the diagnosis of malignancy after inconclusive or equivocal mammographic diagnostic evaluation. Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208:1378–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Van Zee KJ, White J, Morrow M, Harris JR. Ductal carcinoma in situ and microinvasive carcinoma. In: Harris JR, editor. Diseases of the breast. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins; 2014. p. 337–59.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Evans AJ, Pinder SE, James JJ, Ellis IO, Cornford E. Is mammographic spiculation an independent, good prognostic factor in screening-detected-invasive breast cancer? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:1377–80Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Adrada B, Arribas E, Gilcrease M, Yang WT. Invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast: mammographic, sonographic, and MRI features. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:58–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yilmaz E, Lebe B, Balci P, Sal S, Canda T. Comparison of mammographic and sonographic findings in typical and atypical medullary carcinomas. Clin Radiol. 2002;57:640–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Matsuda M, Yoshimoto M, Iwase T, Takahashi K, Kasumi F, Akiyama F, et al. Mammographic and clinicopathological features of mucinous carcinoma of the breast. Breast Cancer. 2000;7:65–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jagmohan P, Jane Pool F, Choudary Putti T, Wong J. Papillary lesions of the breast: imaging findings and diagnostic challenges. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2013;19:471–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leddy R, Irshad A, Rumboldt T, Cluver A, Campbell A, Ackerman S. Review of metaplastic carcinoma of the breast: imaging findings and pathologic features. J Clin Imaging Sci. 2012;2:21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Glazebrook KN, Reynolds C, Smith RL, Gimenez EI, Boughey JC. Adenoid cystic carcinoma of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:1391–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lee YJ, Choi BB, Suh KS. Invasive cribriform carcinoma of the breast: mammographic, sonographic, MRI, and 18 F-FDG PET-CT features. Acta Radiol. 2015;56:644–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Alvarado-Cabrero I, Picón Coronel G, Valencia Cedillo R, Canedo N, Tavassoli FA. Florid lobular intraepithelial neoplasia with signet ring cells, central necrosis and calcifications: a clinicopathological and immunohistochemical analysis of ten cases associated with invasive lobular carcinoma. Arch Med Res. 2010;41:436–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hoda SA, Harigopal M, Harris GC, Pinder SE, Lee AH, Ellis IO. Expert opinion: what should be included in reports of needle core biopsies of the breast? Histopathology. 2003;43:84–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Renshaw AA. Adequate histologic sampling of breast core needle biopsies. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2001;125:1055–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Margolin FR, Kaufman L, Jacobs RP, Denny SR, Schrumpf JD. Stereotactic core breast biopsy of malignant calcifications: diagnostic yield of cores with and cores without calcifications on specimen radiographs. Radiology. 2004;233:252–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dua SM, Gray RJ, Keshtgar M. Strategies for localization of impalpable breast lesions. Breast. 2011;20:246–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Isabel Alvarado-Cabrero
    • 1
  • Eloisa Asia Sanchez-Vivar
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PathologyHospital de Oncologia, Centro Medico Nacional Siglo XXI, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro SocialMexico CityMexico
  2. 2.Radiology Department, Hospital de Oncologia, Centro Medico Nacional Siglo XXI, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro SocialMexicoMexico

Personalised recommendations