A prospective study of the diagnostic accuracy of cytological criteria in the FNAB diagnosis of breast papillomas

Diagnostic Cytopathology

Volumn 35, Issue 8, 2007, Pages 465-475

  Field, Andrew ^a   Mak, Alison ^a  

^a ST VINCENT S HOSPITAL   (Australia)

Author keywords

Breast papillomas; Meshwork fragments; Papillary fragments; Positive predictive value; Sensitivity; Specificity; Stellate fragments

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST PAPILLOMA; CYTOPATHOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

BIOPSY, FINE-NEEDLE; BREAST NEOPLASMS; BREAST NEOPLASMS, MALE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PAPILLOMA, INTRADUCTAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 34547942135     PISSN: 87551039     EISSN: 10970339     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/dc.20653     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. 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.
2. Carder PJ. Fine needle aspiration cytology of the breast-time for a rethink? Cytopathology 2004;15:336-337.
3. Field AS, Mak A. The fine needle aspiration biopsy diagnostic criteria of proliferative breast lesions: a retrospective statistical analysis of criteria for papillomas and radial scar lesions. Diagn Cytopathol 2007;35:386-397.
4. Subcommittees National Cancer Institute FNA of Breast Workshop. The uniform approach to breast FNAB. Diagn Cytopathol 1997;16:295-311.
5. Nayar R, De Frias DV, Bourtsos EP, et al. Cytologic differential diagnosis of papillary pattern in breast aspirates: Correlation with histology. Ann Diagn Pathol 2001;5:34-42.
6. Dawson AE, Mulford DK. Benign versus malignant papillary neoplasms of the breast. Diagnostic clues in fine needle aspiration cytology. Acta Cytol 1994;38:23-28.
7. Maygarden SJ, Novotny DB, Johnson DE, Frable WJ. Subclassification of benign breast disease by fine needle aspiration cytology. Comparison of cytologic and histologic findings in 265 palpable breast masses. Acta Cytol 1994;38:115-129.
8. Ku NNK, Mela N, Cox CE, et al. Diagnostic pitfalls in aspiration biopsy cytology of papillary breast lesions. Cancer Control 1997;4:451-457.
9. Gomez-Aracil V, Mayayo E, Azua J, Arraiza A. Papillary neoplasms of the breast: Clues in fine needle aspiration cytology. Cytopathology 2002;13:22-30.
10. Michael CW, Buschmann B. Can true papillary neoplasms of breast and their mimickers be accurately classified by cytology? Cancer Cytopathol 2002;96:92-100.
11. Orell SR, Sterrett GF, Walters MN-I, et al. Breast. Manual and atlas of fine needle aspiration cytology. London: Churchill Livingstone; 1999. p 146-199.
12. Thomas PA, Raab SS, Cohen MB. Is the fine-needle aspiration biopsy diagnosis of proliferative breast disease feasible? Diagn Cytopathol 1994;7:301-306.
13. Stanley MW, Henry-Stanley MJ, Zera R. Atypia in breast fine-needle aspiration smears correlates poorly with the presence of a prognostically significant proliferative lesion of ductal epithelium. Human Pathol 1993;24:630-635.
14. Lamb J, McGoogan E. Fine needle aspiration cytology of breast in invasive carcinoma of tubular type and in radial scar/complex sclerosing lesions. Cytopathology 1994;5:17-26.
15. Bonzanini M, Gilioli E, Brancato B, et al. Cytologic features of 22 radial scar/complex sclerosing lesions of the breast, three of which associated with carcinoma: Clinical, mammographic, and histologic correlation. Diagn Cytopathol 1997;17:353-362.
16. 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.
17. Masood S, Frykberg ER, McLellan GL, et al. Cytologic differentiation between proliferative and nonproliferative breast disease in mammographically guided fine-needle aspirates. Diagn Cytopathol 1991;7:581-590.
18. 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;9:713-728.
19. Frost AR, Tabbara SO, Poprocky LA, et al. Cytologic features of proliferative breast disease. A study designed to minimize sampling error. Cancer 2000;90:33-40.
20. 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? Semin Diagn Pathol 1999;16:202-208.
21. Mak A, Field AS. The positive predictive value of the breast FNAB diagnoses of epithelial hyperplasia with atypia, papilloma and radial scar. Diagn Cytopathol 2006;34:818-823.
22. Lieberman L, Cohen MA, Dershaw DP, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed as stereotactic core biopsy of breast lesions: An indication for surgical biopsy. AJR 1995;164:1111-1113.
23. 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.
24. Choi YD, Gong GY, Kim MJ, et al. Clinical and cytological features of papillary neoplasms of the breast. Acta Cytol 2006;50:35-40.