Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Suspicious of Malignancy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The International Academy of Cytology Yokohama System for Reporting Breast Fine Needle Aspiration Biopsy Cytopathology

  • 1097 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter defines the Suspicious of Malignancy category, discusses the reasons why suspicious of malignancy reports occur, and why a definitive diagnosis of malignancy cannot or should not be made in certain circumstances. The category allows for the maintenance of a high positive predictive value of a malignant diagnosis. Many of the reasons for an inability to make a definitive diagnosis of malignancy are similar to those seen in the atypical category and include the specimen quality, which is largely reliant on the skill of the FNAB operator, the experience of the cytopathologist interpreting the smears, and the inherent nature of the lesion. There are overlapping cytological criteria between some breast proliferative and in situ lesions, and between in situ lesions and some malignant tumours, and distinguishing carcinoma and lymphoma also may be difficult on occasion. The chapter details the cytological features of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and discusses this controversial area to provide an approach to the diagnosis and differential diagnoses for low-grade DCIS. The management of Suspicious of Malignancy FNAB cytology cases is presented and highlights the need for further investigation by core needle or excision biopsy in all cases. Sample reports are presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Ayata G, Abu-Jawdeh GM, Fraser JL, et al. Accuracy and consistency in application of a probabilistic approach to reporting breast FNA. Acta Cytol. 2003;47:973–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Chaiwun B, Sukhamwang N, Lekawanvijit S, et al. Atypical and suspicious categories in fine needle aspiration cytology of the breast: histological and mammographical correlation and clinical significance. Singap Med J. 2005;46:706–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Nguansangiam S, Jesdapatarakul S, Tangjitgamol S. Accuracy of fine needle aspiration cytology from breast masses in Thailand. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2009;10(4):623–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Abdel-Hadi M, Abdel-Hamid GF, Abdel-Razek N, Fawzy RK. Should fine-needle aspiration cytology be the first choice diagnostic modality for assessment of all nonpalpable breast lesions? The experience of a breast cancer screening center in Alexandria, Egypt. Diagn Cytopathol. 2010;38(12):880–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Goyal P, Sehgal S, Ghosh S, et al. Histopathological correlation of atypical (C3) and suspicious (C4) categories in FNA cytology of the breast. Int J Breast Cancer. 2013;2013:48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Weigner J, Zardawi I, Braye S, et al. The microscopic complexities of C3 in breast cytology. Acta Cytol. 2014;58:335–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Aker F, Gumrukcu G, Onomay BC, et al. Accuracy of fine-needle aspiration cytology in the diagnosis of breast cancer a single-center retrospective study from Turkey with cytohistological correlation in 733 cases. Diagn Cytopathol. 2015;43(12):978–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Daramola AO, Odubanjo MO, Obiajulu FJ, Ikeri NZ, Banjo AA. Correlation between fine-needle aspiration cytology and histology for palpable breast masses in a Nigerian tertiary health institution. Int J Breast Cancer. 2015;2015:742573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Arul P, Masilamani S, Akshatha C. FNA cytology of atypical (C3) and suspicious (4) categories in the breast and its histopathologic correlation. J Cytol. 2016;33:76–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Miskovic J, Zoric A, Radic Miskovic H, Soljic V. Diagnostic value of fine needle aspiration cytology for breast tumors. Acta Clin Croat. 2016;55(4):625–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dong J, Ly A, Arpin R, et al. Breast fine needle aspiration continues to be relevant in a large academic medical center: experience from Massachusetts General Hospital. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;158:297–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Wang M, He X, Chang Y, Sun G, Thabane L. A sensitivity and specificity comparison of fine needle aspiration cytology and core needle biopsy in evaluation of suspicious breast lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast. 2017;31:157–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Yu S-N, Li J, Wong S-I, et al. Atypical aspirates of the breast: a dilemma in current cytology practice. J Clin Pathol. 2017;70(12):1024–32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hoda R, Brachtel E. IAC Yokohama system for reporting breast FNAB cytology: a review of predictive values and risks of malignancy. Acta Cytol. 2019;63:292–301.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Montezuma D, Malheiros D, Schmitt F. Breast FNAB cytology using the newly proposed IAC Yokohama system for reporting breast cytopathology: the experience of a single institution. Acta Cytol. 2019;63:274–9.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Wong S, Rickard M, Earls P, Arnold L, Bako B, Field AS. The IAC Yokohama System for Reporting Breast FNAB Cytology: a single institutional retrospective study of the application of the System and the impact of ROSE. Acta Cytol. 2019;63:280–91.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ljung BM, Drejet A, Chiampi N, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of FNAB is determined by physician training in sampling technique. Cancer Cytopathol. 2001;93:263–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Lee KR, Foster RS, Papillo JL. Fine needle aspiration of the breast. Importance of the aspirator. Acta Cytol. 1987;31:281–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bofin AM, Lydersen S, Hagmar BM. Cytological criteria for the diagnosis of intraductal hyperplasia, ductal carcinoma in situ, and invasive carcinoma of the breast. Diagn Cytopathol. 2004;31:207–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Simsir A, Waisman J, Cangiarella J. Fibroadenomas with atypia: causes of under and overdiagnois by aspiration biopsy. Diagn Cytopathol. 2001;25:278–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Field AS, Mak A. A prospective study of the diagnostic accuracy of cytological criteria in the FNAB diagnosis of breast papillomas. Diagn Cytopathol. 2007;35:465–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Orell S. Radial scar/complex sclerosing lesion—a problem in the diagnostic work-up of screen detected breast lesions. Cytopathology. 1999;10:250–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Silverman JF, Masood S, Ducatman BS, et al. Can FNA biopsy separate atypical hyperplasia, carcinoma in-situ, and invasive carcinoma of the breast? Cytomorphologic criteria and limitations in diagnosis. Diagn Cytopathol. 1993;24:630–5.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Deb RA, Matthews P, Elston CW, et al. An audit of ‘equivocal’ (C3) and suspicious (C4) categories in FNA cytology of breast. Cytopathology. 2001;1:219–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ciatto S, Cariaggi P, Bulgaresi P, Confortini M, Bonardi R. Fine needle aspiration cytology of the breast: review of 9533 consecutive cases. Breast. 1993;2:87–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Park IA, Ham EK. Fine needle aspiration cytology of palpable breast lesions. Histologic subtype in false negative cases. Acta Cytol. 1997;41:1131–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Bonzanini M, Gilioli E, Brancato B, et al. The cytopathology of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. A detailed analysis of fine needle aspiration cytology of 58 cases compared with 101 invasive ductal carcinomas. Cyopathology. 2001;12(2):107–19.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Cangiarella J, Waisman J, Simsir A. Cytologic findings with histologic correlation in 43 cases of mammary intraductal adenocarcinoma diagnosed by aspiration biopsy. Acta Cytol. 2003;47:965–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lilleng R, Hagmar B. The comedo subtype of intraductal carcinoma. Cytologic characteristics. Acta Cytol. 1992;36:345–52.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sauer T, Young K, Thoresen Sø. Fine needle aspiration cytology in the work-up of mammographic and ultrasonographic findings in breast cancer screening: an attempt at differentiating in situ and invasive carcinoma. Cytopathology. 2002;13(2):101–10.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Abdel-Fatah TMA, Powe DG, Hodi Z, et al. Morphological and molecular evolutionary pathways of low nuclear grade invasive breast cancers and their putative precursor lesions: further evidence to support the concept of a low-grade breast neoplasia family. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32:513–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sauer T, Myrvold K, Lomo J, Anderssen KY, Skaane P. Fine-needle aspiration cytology in nonpalpable mammographic abnormalities in breast cancer screening: results from the breast cancer screening programme in Oslo 1996-2001. Breast. 2003;12(5):314–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lakhani SREI, Schnitt SJ, Tan PH, van de Vivjer M, editors. In: WHO classification of tumours of the breast. 4th ed. Lyon: International Agency for Research of Cancer; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Silverstein MJ, Poller DN, Waisman J. Prognostic classification of breast ductal carcinoma-in situ. Lancet. 1995;345:1154–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Sauer T, Lõmo J, Garred ù, Nëss O. Cytologic features of ductal carcinoma in situ in fine-needle aspiration of the breast mirror the histopathologic growth pattern heterogeneity and grading. Cancer Cytopathol. 2005;105(1):21–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Beca F, Schmitt FS. Ancillary tests in breast FNAB cytology: a practical guide to current use. Acta Cytol. 2019;63:302–13.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Field AS. Chapter 5 Breast. In: Field AS, Zarka MA, editors, Practical Cytopathology: a Diagnostic Approach to FNA Biopsy. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Gibbons CE, Quinn CM, Gibbons D. Fine needle aspiration biopsy management of the axilla in primary breast carcinoma. Acta Cytol. 2019;63(4):314–8.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of NSW and University of Notre Dame Medical Schools, St Vincent’s Hospital, Sydney, Australia

    Andrew S. Field

  2. Akershus University Hospital, Department of Pathology, Lørenskog, Viken, Norway

    Torill Sauer

  3. Department of Pathology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Britt-Marie Ljung

  4. Department of Histopathology, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, UK

    Andrew H. S. Lee

  5. Flinders Medical Centre, Flinders University of South Australia and Clinpath Laboratories, Adelaide, Australia

    Wendy A. Raymond

  6. Toronto, ON, Canada

    William R. Geddie

  7. Institute of Molecular Pathology and Immunology of Porto University (IPATIMUP), Medical Faculty of Porto University, Porto, Portugal

    Fernando Schmitt

Authors
  1. Andrew S. Field
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Torill Sauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Britt-Marie Ljung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrew H. S. Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Wendy A. Raymond
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. William R. Geddie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Fernando Schmitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew S. Field .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of NSW and University of Notre Dame Medical Schools, St Vincent’s Hospital, Sydney, Australia

    Andrew S. Field

  2. Flinders Medical Centre, Flinders University of South Australia and Clinpath Laboratories, Adelaide, Australia

    Wendy A. Raymond

  3. Institute of Molecular Pathology and Immunology of Porto University (IPATIMUP), Medical Faculty of Porto University, Porto, Portugal

    Fernando Schmitt

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Field, A.S. et al. (2020). Suspicious of Malignancy. In: Field, A.S., Raymond, W.A., Schmitt, F. (eds) The International Academy of Cytology Yokohama System for Reporting Breast Fine Needle Aspiration Biopsy Cytopathology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26883-1_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26883-1_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-26882-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-26883-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation