Is the upgrade rate of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed by core needle biopsy of calcifications different for digital and film-screen mammography?

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 203, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 917-922

  McLaughlin, Carol T ^a,b   Neal, Colleen H ^a   Helvie, Mark A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

^b WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Atypical ductal hyperplasia; Digital mammography; Upgrade

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ATYPICAL DUCTAL HYPERPLASIA; BREAST CALCIFICATION; CANCER GRADING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FILM SCREEN MAMMOGRAPHY; GAUGE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; NEEDLE; PATHOLOGIST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; STEREOTACTIC BIOPSY; STEREOTACTIC VACUUM ASSISTED CORE NEEDLE BIOPSY; TUMOR INVASION; VERY ELDERLY; BREAST TUMOR; CALCINOSIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; IMAGE QUALITY; LARGE CORE NEEDLE BIOPSY; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PAGET NIPPLE DISEASE; PRECANCER; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UPGRADE; X RAY FILM;

ATYPICAL DUCTAL HYPERPLASIA; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; UPGRADE;

ADULT; AGED; BIOPSY, LARGE-CORE NEEDLE; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CALCINOSIS; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; PRECANCEROUS CONDITIONS; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; X-RAY FILM;

EID: 84910152582     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: 15463141     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.13.11862     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Dupont WD, Page DL. Risk factors for breast cancer in women with proliferative breast disease. N Engl J Med 1985; 312:146-151
2. Degnim AC, Visscher DW, Berman HK, et al. Stratification of breast cancer risk in women with atypia: a Mayo cohort study. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:2671-2677
3. Sinn HP, Elsawaf Z, Helmchen B, Aulmann S. Early breast cancer precursor lesions: lessons learned from molecular and clinical studies. Breast Care (Basel) 2010; 5:218-226
4. Del Turco MR, Mantellini P, Ciatto S, et al. Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. AJR 2007; 189:860-866
5. Weigel S, Decker T, Korsching E, Hungermann D, Bocker W, Heindel W. Calcifications in digital mammographic screening: improvement of early detection of invasive breast cancers? Radiology 2010; 255:738-745
6. Venta LA, Hendrick RE, Adler YT, et al. Rates and causes of disagreement in interpretation of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography in a diagnostic setting. AJR 2001; 176:1241-1248
7. Kim HS, Han BK, Choo KS, Jeon YH, Kim JH, Choe YH. Screen-film mammography and soft-copy full-field digital mammography: comparison in the patients with microcalcifications. Korean J Radiol 2005; 6:214-220
8. Evans A. The diagnosis and management of pre-invasive breast disease: radiological diagnosis. Breast Cancer Res 2003; 5:250-253
9. Helvie MA, Hessler C, Frank TS, Ikeda DM. Atypical hyperplasia of the breast: mammographic appearance and histologic correlation. Radiology 1991; 179:759-764
10. Neal CH, Coletti MC, Joe A, Jeffries DO, Helvie MA. Does digital mammography increase detection of high-risk breast lesions presenting as calcifications? AJR 2013; 201:1148-1154
11. Brem RF, Behrndt VS, Sanow L, Gatewood OM. Atypical ductal hyperplasia: histologic underestimation of carcinoma in tissue harvested from impalpable breast lesions using 11-gauge stereotactically guided directional vacuum-assisted biopsy. AJR 1999; 172:1405-1407
12. Liberman L, Cohen MA, Dershaw DD, Abramson AF, Hann LE, Rosen PP. Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at stereotactic core biopsy of breast lesions: an indication for surgical biopsy. AJR 1995; 164:1111-1113
13. Philpotts LE, Lee CH, Horvath LJ, Lange RC, Carter D, Tocino I. Underestimation of breast cancer with 11-gauge vacuum suction biopsy. AJR 2000; 175:1047-1050
14. Darling ML, Smith DN, Lester SC, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ as revealed by large-core needle breast biopsy: results of surgical excision. AJR 2000; 175:1341-1346
15. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Breast cancer screening and diagnosis, version 1. National Comprehensive Cancer Center Network (NCCN) website. www.nccn.org. Published 2013
16. Eby PR, Ochsner JE, DeMartini WB, Allison KH, Peacock S, Lehman CD. Frequency and upgrade rates of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: 9- versus 11-gauge. AJR 2009; 192:229-234
17. Deshaies I, Provencher L, Jacob S, et al. Factors associated with upgrading to malignancy at surgery of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed on core biopsy. Breast 2011; 20:50-55
18. Margenthaler JA, Duke D, Monsees BS, Barton PT, Clark C, Dietz JR. Correlation between core biopsy and excisional biopsy in breast high-risk lesions. Am J Surg 2006; 192:534-537
19. Nguyen CV, Albarracin CT, Whitman GJ, Lopez A, Sneige N. Atypical ductal hyperplasia in directional vacuum-assisted biopsy of breast microcalcifications: considerations for surgical excision. Ann Surg Oncol 2011; 18:752-761
20. McGhan LJ, Pockaj BA, Wasif N, Giurescu ME, McCullough AE, Gray RJ. Atypical ductal hyperplasia on core biopsy: an automatic trigger for excisional biopsy? Ann Surg Oncol 2012; 19:3264-3269
21. Polat AK, Kanbour-Shakir A, Andacoglu O, et al. Atypical hyperplasia on core biopsy: is further surgery needed? Am J Med Sci 2012; 344:28-31
22. Villa A, Tagliafico A, Chiesa F, Chaiaramondia M, Friedman D, Calabrese M. Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy performed on suspicious clustered microcalcifications: could patients without residual microcalcifications be managed conservatively? AJR 2011; 197:1012-1018
23. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Mammography Quality Standards Act and Program. Radiation-emitting products: 2012 scorecard statistics. www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/MammographyQualityStandardsActandProgram/DocumentArchives/ucm289914.htm. Accessed June 9, 2014
24. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:1773-1783
25. Skaane P. Studies comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography in breast cancer screening: updated review. Acta Radiol 2009; 50:3-14
26. Karssemeijer N, Bluekens AM, Beijerinck D, et al. Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2009; 253:353-358
27. Hambly NM, McNicholas MM, Phelan N, Hargaden GC, O'Doherty A, Flanagan FL. Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening program. AJR 2009; 193:1010-1018
28. Vernacchia FS, Pena ZG. Digital mammography: its impact on recall rates and cancer detection rates in a small community-based radiology practice. AJR 2009; 193:582-585
29. Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S, et al. Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography. Eur Radiol 2002; 12:2679-2683
30. Fischmann A, Siegmann KC, Wersebe A, Claussen CD, Müller-Schimpfle M. Comparison of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography: image quality and lesion detection. Br J Radiol 2005; 78:312-315
31. th ed. In: D'Orsi CJ, Mendelson EB, Ikeda DM, et al. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: ACR BI-RADS - breast imaging atlas. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003, p. 195
32. Schnitt SJ, Connolly JL, Tavassoli FA, et al. Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of ductal proliferative breast lesions using standardized criteria. Am J Surg Pathol 1992; 16:1133-1143
33. Jain RK, Mehta R, Dimitrov R, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia: interobserver and intraobserver variability. Mod Pathol 2011; 24:917-923