Upgrade Rate of Flat Epithelial Atypia Diagnosed at Stereotactic Core Needle Biopsy of Microcalcifications: Is Excisional Biopsy Indicated?. Issue 4 (19th June 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gordon, Paula B; Branch, Emma
• Is Part Of: Journal of breast imaging. Volume 2:Issue 4(2020)
• Page Start: 336
• Page End: 342
• Publication Date: 2020-06-19
• Subjects: flat epithelial atypia -- upgrade -- breast core biopsy -- stereotactic needle biopsy -- breast calcifications; Breast -- Imaging -- Periodicals; Breast -- Cancer -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; 616.994490
• DOI: 10.1093/jbi/wbaa037
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2631-6110

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: Whether the optimal management of pure flat epithelial atypia (FEA) found on core needle biopsy (CNB) specimens is surgical excision or imaging follow-up remains controversial. This study aimed to determine the upgrade rate to ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), invasive carcinoma or a high-risk lesion (atypical ductal hyperplasia, atypical lobular hyperplasia, or lobular carcinoma in situ), and it explored the relationship between a family history of breast cancer and the risk of upgrade. Methods: Cases with pure FEA found on stereotactic CNB of microcalcifications between March 2011 to December 2017 were followed by excisional biopsy or periodic imaging. The proportion of cases upgraded to a high-risk lesion and the odds of upgrade as related to a family history of breast cancer were determined with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: We identified 622 cases of pure FEA; 101 (16.2%) underwent surgical excision and 269 (43.2%) had imaging follow-up of ≥ 24 months. There were no upgrades to DCIS or invasive cancer in any of these 370 individuals (0%), and 4.6% (17/370; 95% CI: 2.9%–7.2%) were upgraded to a high-risk lesion. There was a nonstatistically significant trend between family history and upgrade to high-risk lesion (odds ratio 1.72 [95% CI: 0.65%–4.57%]). Conclusion: In our study, the upgrade rate of pure FEA to malignancy was 0%. We suggest that regular imaging follow-up is an appropriate alternative to surgery. Because of potential differences in biopsy techniques and pathologist interpretation of the primary biopsy, individual institutions should audit their own results prior to altering their management of FEA.