Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32816199›Full record

ReviewEuropean radiology2021

Positive predictive value for malignancy of uncertain malignant potential (B3) breast lesions diagnosed on vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB): is surgical excision still recommended?

Marco Lucioni, Chiara Rossi, Pascal Lomoro, Francesco Ballati, Marianna Fanizza, Alberta Ferrari, Carlos A Garcia-Etienne, Emanuela Boveri, Giulia Meloni, Maria Grazia Sommaruga and 6 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Marco LucioniAnatomic Pathology Section, Department of Human Pathology, University of Pavia, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy.
Chiara RossiAnatomic Pathology Section, Department of Human Pathology, University of Pavia, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy.
Pascal LomoroBreast Imaging Department, Valduce Hospital, Via Dante Alighieri 11, 22100, Como, Italy. lmr.pcl89@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3614-4706
Francesco BallatiBreast Imaging Department, University of Pavia, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy.
Marianna FanizzaBreast Imaging Department, University of Pavia, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy.
Alberta FerrariBreast Surgery Department, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Università degli Studi di Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Carlos A Garcia-EtienneBreast Surgery Department, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Università degli Studi di Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Emanuela BoveriAnatomic Pathology Section, Department of Human Pathology, University of Pavia, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy.
Giulia MeloniBreast Imaging Department, University of Pavia, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy.
Maria Grazia SommarugaBreast Imaging Department, University of Pavia, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy.
Elisa FerrarisMedical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo and, Università degli Studi, Pavia, Italy.
Angioletta LasagnaMedical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo and, Università degli Studi, Pavia, Italy.
Elisabetta BonzanoUniversity of Pavia and Department of Radiation Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy.
Marco PaulliAnatomic Pathology Section, Department of Human Pathology, University of Pavia, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy.
Adele SgarellaBreast Surgery Department, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Università degli Studi di Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Giuseppe Di GiulioBreast Imaging Department, University of Pavia, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy.
University of Pavia · ITPoliclinico San Matteo Fondazione · ITOspedale Valduce · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeBreast lesions classified as of "uncertain malignant potential" represent a heterogeneous group of abnormalities with an increased risk of associated malignancy. Clinical management of B3 lesions diagnosed on vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VABB) is still challenging: surgical excision is no longer the only available treatment and VABB may be sufficient for therapeutic excision. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the positive predictive value (PPV) for malignancy in B3 lesions that underwent surgical excision, identifying possible upgrading predictive factors and characterizing the malignant lesions eventually diagnosed. These results are compared with a subset of patients with B3 lesions who underwent follow-up.

methodsA total of 1250 VABBs were performed between January 2006 and December 2017 at our center. In total, 150 B3 cases were diagnosed and 68 of them underwent surgical excision. VABB findings were correlated with excision histology. A PPV for malignancy for each B3 subtype was derived.

resultsThe overall PPV rate was 28%, with the highest upgrade rate for atypical ductal hyperplasia (41%), followed by classical lobular neoplasia (29%) and flat epithelial atypia (11%). Only two cases of carcinoma were detected in the follow-up cohort, both associated with atypical ductal hyperplasia at VABB.

conclusionOpen surgery is recommended in case of atypical ductal hyperplasia while, for other B3 lesions, excision with VABB only may be an acceptable alternative if radio-pathological correlation is assessed, if all microcalcifications have been removed by VABB, and if the lesion lacks high-risk cytological features. KEY POINTS: • Surgical treatment is strongly recommended in case of ADH, while the upgrade rate in case of pure FEA, especially following complete microcalcification removal by VABB, may be sufficiently low to advice surveillance as a management strategy. • The use of 11-G- or 8-G-needle VABB, resulting in possible complete diagnostic excision of the lesion, can be an acceptable alternative in case of RS, considering open surgery only for selected high-risk patients. • LN management is more controversial: surgical excision may be recommended following classical LN diagnosis on breast biopsy if an additional B3 lesion is concurrently detected while in the presence of isolated LN with adequate radiological-pathological correlation follow-up alone could be an acceptable option.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingBreastHumansImage-Guided BiopsyMammographyPredictive Value of TestsRetrospective StudiesAtypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH)Breast cancerCarcinoma lobularImage-guided biopsyMalignant epithelial neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID32816199
OpenAlexW3068594876

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.