Positive predictive value of the breast FNAB diagnoses of epithelial hyperplasia with atypia, papilloma, and radial scar

Diagnostic Cytopathology

Volumn 34, Issue 12, 2006, Pages 818-823

  Mak, Alison ^a   Field, Andrew S ^a  

^a ST VINCENT S HOSPITAL   (Australia)

Author keywords

Epithelial hyperplasia with atypia; Papillomas; Positive predictive value; Proliferative breast lesions; Radial scars

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASPIRATION BIOPSY; CLINICAL FEATURE; CYTODIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; EPITHELIUM HYPERPLASIA; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAPILLOMA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY;

BIOPSY, FINE-NEEDLE; BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CICATRIX; CYTODIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; EPITHELIAL CELLS; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYPERPLASIA; PAPILLOMA; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 33845417969     PISSN: 87551039     EISSN: 10970339     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/dc.20560     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Sneige N, Staerkel GA. Fine-needle aspiration cytology of ductal hyperplasia with and without atypia and ductal carcinoma in situ. Hum Pathol 1994;25:485-492.
2. Lieberman L, Cohen MA, Dershaw DP, Abramson AF, Hann LE, Rosen PP. Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed on stereotactic core biopsy of breast lesions: An indication for surgical biopsy. Am J Roentgenol 1995;164:1111-1113.
3. Schnitt SJ, Connolly JL, Tavassoli FA, et al. Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of proliferative breast lesions using standardized criteria. Am J Surg Pathol 1992;16:1133-1143.
4. Liao J, Davey DD, Warren G, Davis J, Moore AR, Samayoa LM. Ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy remains a valid approach in the evaluation of nonpalpable breast lesions. Diagn Cytopathol 2004;30:325-331.
5. Page DL, Dupont WD. Anatomic indicators (histologic and cytologic) of increased breast-cancer risk. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1993;28:157-166.
6. Sidawy MK, Stoler MH, Frable WJ, et al. Interobserver variability in the classification of proliferative breast lesions by FNA: Results of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology study. Diagn Cytopathol 1998;18:150-165.
7. Lim JC, Al-Masri H, Salhadar A, Bill Xie H, Gabram S, Wojcik EM. The significance of the diagnosis of atypia in breast FNA. Diagn Cytopathol 2004;31:285-288.
8. Ku NNK, Mela N, Cox CE, Reintgen DS, Nicosia SV. Diagnostic pitfalls in aspiration biopsy cytology of papillary breast lesions. Cancer Control 1997;4:451-457.
9. Tavassoli FA. Papillary lesions. In: Pathology of the breast. Stamford: Appleton & Lange; 1999. p 325-372.
10. Nayar R, De Frias DV, Bourtsos EP, Sutton V, Bedrossian C. Cytologic differential diagnosis of papillary pattern in breast aspirates: Correlation with histology. Ann Diagn Pathol 2001;5:34-42.
11. Masood S, Loya A, Khalbuss W. Is core biopsy superior to fine-needle aspiration biopsy in the diagnosis of papillary breast lesions? Diagn Cytopathol 2003;28:329-334.
12. Simsir A, Waisman J, Thorner K, Cangiarella J. Mammary lesions diagnosed as "papillary" by aspiration biopsy. 70 cases with follow-up. Cancer Cytopathol 2003;99:156-165.
13. Orell SR. Radial scar/complex sclerosing lesion - A problem in the diagnostic work-up of screen-detected breast lesions. Cytopathology 1999;10:250-258.
14. Greenberg ML, Camaris C, Psarianos T, Ung OA, Lee WB. Is there a role for fine-needle aspiration in radial scar/complex sclerosing lesions of the breast? Diagn Cytopathol 1997;16:537-542.
15. Ung OA, Lee WB, Greenberg ML, Bilous M. Complex sclerosing lesion: The lesion is complex, the management is straightforward. ANZ J Surg 2001;71:35-40.
16. Bonzanini M, Gilioli E, Brancato B, Pellegrini M, Mauri MF, Dalla Palma P. Cytologic features of 22 radial scar/complex sclerosing lesions of the breast, three of which associated with carcinoma: Clinical, mammographie, and histologic correlation. Diagn Cytopathol 1997;17:353-362.
17. National Cancer Institute FNA of Breast Workshop Subcommittees. The uniform approach to breast FNAB. Diagn Cytopathol 1997;16:295-311.
18. Masood S, Frykberg ER, McLellan GL, Dee S, Bullard JB. Cytologic differentiation between proliferative and nonproliferative breast disease in mammographically guided fine-needle aspirates. Diagn Cytopathol 1991;7:581-590.
19. Thomas PA, Raab SS, Cohen MB. Is the fine-needle aspiration biopsy diagnosis of proliferative breast disease feasible? Diagn Cytopathol 1994;7:301-306.
20. Kanhoush R, Jorda M, Gomez-Fernandez C, et al. 'Atypical' and 'suspicious' diagnoses in breast aspiration cytology. Is there a need for two categories? Cancer Cytopathol 2004;102:164-167.
21. Ellis IO, Pinder SE, Lee AH, Elston CW. A critical appraisal of existing classification systems of epithelial hyperplasia and in situ neoplasm of the breast with proposals for future methods of categorization: Where are we going? Sem Diagn Pathol 1999;16:202-208.
22. Elston CW, Ellis IO, Goulding H. Sclerosing lesions. In: Elston CW, Ellis IO, editors. Systemic pathology, Vol. 13. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1998. p 107-132.
23. Michael CW, Buschmann B. Can true papillary neoplasms of breast and their mimickers be accurately classified by cytology? Cancer Cytopathol 2002;96:92-100.
24. Ellis IO, Elston CW, Pinder SE. Papillary lesions. In: Elston CW, Ellis 10, editors. Systemic pathology, Vol. 13. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1998. p 133-146.