Dokument: Untersuchung über die Malignitätsrate von Brustläsionen mit unsicherem biologischen Potenzial (B3) im Rahmen eines retrospektiven Erhebungsverfahrens des interdisziplinären Brustzentrums des Universitätsklinikums Düsseldorf

Titel:

Untersuchung über die Malignitätsrate von Brustläsionen mit unsicherem biologischen Potenzial (B3) im Rahmen eines retrospektiven Erhebungsverfahrens des interdisziplinären Brustzentrums des Universitätsklinikums Düsseldorf

URL für Lesezeichen:

https://docserv.uni-duesseldorf.de/servlets/DocumentServlet?id=59031

URN (NBN):

urn:nbn:de:hbz:061-20220314-075418-4

Kollektion:

Dissertationen

Sprache:

Deutsch

Dokumententyp:

Wissenschaftliche Abschlussarbeiten » Dissertation

Medientyp:

Text

Autor:

Maier-Bode, Anna [Autor]

Dateien:

[Dateien anzeigen]	Adobe PDF
[Details]	3,90 MB in einer Datei
[ZIP-Datei erzeugen]
Dateien vom 10.03.2022 / geändert 10.03.2022

Beitragende:

Prof. Dr. med. Fehm, Tanja [Gutachter]
Prof. Dr. Antoch, Gerald [Gutachter]

Stichwörter:

B3-Läsionen Mammakarzinom Malignitätsrate Breast Biopsie B3 lesion · Malignancy rate · Risk factors · Breast surgery · Therapy

Dewey Dezimal-Klassifikation:

600 Technik, Medizin, angewandte Wissenschaften » 610 Medizin und Gesundheit

Beschreibungen:

B3-Läsionen treten in der Mamma-Diagnostik relativ selten auf. Aufgrund ihres heterogenen Erscheinungsbildes, der Komplexität ihres biologischen Verhaltens und ihrem nicht zu unter-schätzenden Entartungsrisiko wird in der Literatur immer wieder die Frage aufgeworfen, wie mit diesen Befunden umgegangen werden muss.
Unsere Studie geht der Frage nach, wie hoch die Malignitätsrate der einzelnen B3-Subgruppen ist und welche Risikofaktoren eine Rolle spielen einen malignen Befund zu erhal-ten.
Wir untersuchten 192 B3-Läsionen und fanden folgende prozentuale Verteilung nach minimal-invasivem Eingriff: ADH 7,3 %, FEA 7,8 %, LIN 7,8 %, Pa 49,5 %, PT 8,9 %, RSL3,1 %, ge-mischte Befunde 10,4 %, andere B3-Läsionen 5,2 %.
Nach offener Exzision erfolgte in 14,1 % der Fälle eine Höherstufung zu einem malignen Be-fund, in 9,4 % zu einem DCIS, in 4,7 % zu einem invasiven Karzinom. Bezogen auf die einzel-nen B3-Läsionen ergaben sich folgende Malignitätsraten: ADH 28,6 %, FEA 13,3 % LIN 33,3 %, Pa 12,6 %, PT 5,9 %, RSL 0 %.
Der wichtigste Risikofaktor, welcher einen signifikanten Einfluss auf die Höherstufung aller B3-Läsionen hatte, war zunehmendes Alter. Wir konnten auch zeigen, dass ein post-menopausaler Status ein erhöhtes Risiko für eine Höherstufung darstellte (p = 0,015). In der Gruppe der Patienten mit malignen Vorerkrankungen der Mamma erwies sich die Lokalisation derselben als signifikanter Risikofaktor (p = 0,003). Eine ipsilaterale Erkrankung führte in 42,9 % der Fälle zu einem Upgrade, eine beidseitige Lokalisation in 50 %. Bezogen auf die ver-schiedenen Subgruppen ergaben sich noch weitere Parameter, welche einen signifikanten Einfluss auf die Höherstufungsrate der einzelnen B3-Befunde zeigten. So war bei einer ADH die stereotaktische Biopsiemethode ein signifikanter Einflussfaktor. In der sonographisch ge-steuerten Jetnadelbiopsiegruppe stellte sowohl Mikrokalk einen signifikanten Risikofaktor dar für das Vorhandensein eines DCIS oder Karzinoms dar als auch die Anwesenheit von > 1 B3-Läsion.
In der Literatur findet sich eine Vielzahl an Empfehlungen, wie bei B3-Befund weiter vorgegan-gen werden sollte. Wir halten grundsätzlich eine offene Exzision nach bioptisch gesicherter B3-Läsion für empfehlenswert, so lange nicht weitere Studien mit größerer Fallzahl diese Empfehlung widerlegen.

B3 lesions in breast cancer diagnostics occur relatively rarely. The question that frequently arises in the literature is how to manage these lesions due to their heterogeneous appear-ance, the complexity of their biological behaviours, and their malignant potential, which should not be underestimated.
In our study, we examined the malignancy rate in individual B3 subgroups as well as which factors play a role in the risk of a malignant diagnosis.
We examined 192 B3 lesions and discovered the following proportions after a minimally inva-sive intervention: ADH 7.3 %, FEA 7.8 %, LIN 7.8 %, Pa 49.5 %, PT 8.9 %, RSL 3.1 %, mixed results 10.4 %, and other B3 lesions 5.2 %.
After open excision, the diagnosis was upgraded to malignant in 14.1 % of cases, to DCIS in 9.4 % of cases, and to invasive carcinoma in 4.7 % of cases.
The following malignancy rates were discovered from the different B3 lesions: ADH 28.6 %, FEA 13.3 %, LIN 33.3 %, Pa 12.6 %, PT 5.9 %, and RSL 0 %.
The most important risk factor that significantly impacted the upgrade of all B3 lesions was older age. We also showed that women had in a higher risk of an upgrade after menopause (p = 0.015). Regarding malignant pre-existing conditions of the breast, the localisation of these diseases was found to be a significant risk factor (p = 0.003). Ipsilateral disease resulted in an upgrade in 42.9 % of cases and a bilateral localisation in 50 % of cases. Regarding the differ-ent subgroups, there were additional parameters which significantly affected the upgrade rate of the different B3 diagnoses. The stereotactic biopsy method played a significant role in ADH. Both microcalcifications and the presence of > 1 B3 lesions represented a significant risk of developing a DCIS or carcinoma in the sonographic large core needle biopsy group.
There are many recommendations in the literature on how to proceed with a B3 diagnosis. We generally recommend an open excision after a B3 lesion has been verified through a biopsy, as long as future studies with larger case numbers do not contradict this recommendation.

Quelle:

Quellenverzeichnis
1. Reinecke P. Institute of Pathology, Medical Faculty, University of Düsseldorf, Germany. 2019.
2. Krebs in Deutschland für 2015/2016. 12. Ausgabe Berlin: Robert-Koch-Institut und die Gesellschaft der epidemiologischen Krebsregister in Deutschland; 2016 [updated 16.01.2020.
3. S.R. L, O. EI, J. SS, H. TP, J. vdVM. WHO Classification of Tumours of the Breast. Lyon: IARC; 2012.
4. Diagnostik und Therapie des Mamma-Karzinoms, State of the Art. 5. Auflage ed. Untch M, Sittek H, editors. München Wien New York: Zuckschwerdt Verlag; 2008.
5. Mamma K. Läsionen mit unklarem biologischen Potenzial (B3). In: Onkologie Ag, editor. AGO-Online. ago-online.de3/2020.
6. Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft DK, AWMF). S3-Leitlinie Früherkennung, Diagnose, Therapie und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms: Version 4.2 AWMF-Registernummer: 032-045OL2019 [updated 25.11.2019.
7. Sardanelli F, Aase HS, Alvarez M, Azavedo E, Baarslag HJ, Balleyguier C, et al. Position paper on screening for breast cancer by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) and 30 national breast radiology bodies from Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Lithuania, Moldova, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey. European radiology. 2016.
8. Kim KI, Lee KH, Kim TR, Chun YS, Lee TH, Choi HY, et al. Changing patterns of microcalcification on screening mammography for prediction of breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2016;23(3):471-8.
9. Reiser M, Kuhn F-P, Debus J. Mamma. Radiologie. Germany: Georg Thieme Verlag; 3/2011.
10. D´Orsi CJ. ACR BI-RADS Illustrierte Anleitung zur einheitlichen Befunderstellung von Mammographie Mammasonographie MR Mammographie. 4. Auflage ed. Thieme Verlag: U. Fischer (ÖRG) T. Helbich (DRG); 2006.
11. Mamma K. Diagnostik und Therapie primärer und metastasierter Mamma-Ca. In: Onkologie Ag, editor. AGO-Online. ago-online.de3/2019.
12. Golatta M, Harcos A, Junkermann H, Heil J. Mammasonografie. In: Sohn C, Holzgreve W, editors. Ultraschall in Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe. Stuttgart New York: Georg Thieme Verlag; 2013.
13. Madjar H, Ohlinger R, Mundinger A. BI-RADS analoge DEGUM-Kriterien von Ultraschallbefunden der Brust- Konsensus des Arbeitskreises Mammasonographie der DEGUM. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart New York2006. 374-9 p.
14. Degenhard F. Stellungnahme: Die Mammasonographie zur Kontrolle von Tumoren der weiblichen Brust: AG Mammasonographie DEGUM; [Available from: http://www.degum.de/fileadmin/dokumente/arbeitskreise/mammasonographie/StellungnahmeProfDegenhardtzurMammasonographie.pdf.
15. Bickelhaupt S, Laun FB, Tesdorff J, Lederer W. Fast and Noninvasive Characterization of Suspicious Lesions Detected at Breast Canv´cer X-Ray Screening: Capability of Diffusion-weighted MR Imaging with MIPs. RSNA Radiology. 2016;278(3).
16. Kuhl CK. MR imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. Magnetic resonance imaging clinics of North America. 2006;14(3):391-402, vii.
17. Obenauer S, Mohrmann S. Sonografisch und mammografisch gesteuerte Biopsie der Mamma. Radiologie up2date. 2/2011.
18. Rageth CJ, O’Flynn EAM, Pinker K, Kubik-Huch RA, Mundinger A, Decker T, et al. Second International Consensus Conference on lesions of uncertain malignant potential in the breast (B3 lesions). Breast cancer research and treatment. 2019;174(2):279-96.
19. Purushothaman HN, Lekanidi K, Shousha S. Lesions of uncertain malignant potential in the breast (B3): what do we know? Clinical radiology. 2016(71):134-40.
20. Menes TS, Kerlikowske K, Lange J, Jaffer S, Rosenberg R, Miglioretti DL. Subsequent Breast Cancer Risk Following Diagnosis of Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia on Needle Biopsy. JAMA oncology. 2017;3(1):36-41.
21. Chae BJ, Lee A, Song BJ, Jung SS. Predictive factors for breast cancer in patients diagnosed atypical ductal hyperplasia at core needle biopsy. World journal of surgical oncology. 2009;7:77.
22. Richter-Ehrenstein C, Maak K, Roger S, Ehrenstein T. Lesions of "uncertain malignant potential" in the breast (B3) identified with mammography screening. BMC cancer. 2018;18(1):829.
23. Murray M. Pathologic High-risk Lesions, Diagnosis and Management. Clinical obstetrics and gynecology. 2016;59(4):727-32.
24. Nagi C, O`Donnel J, M. T. Lobular neoplasia on core needle biopsy does not require excision. Cancer. 2009;112:2152-8.
25. Simpson PT, Gale T, Fulford LG, Reis-Filho JS, Lakhani SR. The diagnosis and management of pre-invasive breast disease: pathology of atypical lobular hyperplasia and lobular carcinoma in situ. Breast cancer research : BCR. 2003;5(5):258-62.
26. O'Malley FP. Lobular neoplasia: morphology, biological potential and management in core biopsies. Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc. 2010;23 Suppl 2:S14-25.
27. Foote FW, Stewart FW. Lobular carcinoma in situ: A rare form of mammary cancer. The American Journal of Pathology. 1941;17(4):491-6.3.
28. Nakhlis F, Gilmore L, Gelman R, Bedrosian I, Ludwig K, Hwang ES, et al. Incidence of Adjacent Synchronous Invasive Carcinoma and/or Ductal Carcinoma In-situ in Patients with Lobular Neoplasia on Core Biopsy: Results from a Prospective Multi-Institutional Registry (TBCRC 020). Annals of surgical oncology. 2016;23(3):722-8.
29. Elsheikh TM, Silverman JF. Follow-up surgical excision is indicated when breast core needle biopsies show atypical lobular hyperplasia or lobular carcinoma in situ: a correlative study of 33 patients with review of the literature. The American journal of surgical pathology. 2005;29(4):534-43.
30. Hartmann LC, Radisky DC, Frost MH, Santen RJ, Vierkant RA, Benetti LL, et al. Understanding the premalignant potential of atypical hyperplasia through its natural history: a longitudinal cohort study. Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa). 2014;7(2):211-7.
31. Collins LC, Baer HJ, Tamimi RM, Connolly JL, Colditz GA, Schnitt SJ. Magnitude and laterality of breast cancer risk according to histologic type of atypical hyperplasia: results from the Nurses' Health Study. Cancer. 2007;109(2):180-7.
32. Boufelli G, Giannotti MA, Ruiz CA, Barros N, Chala LF, Maesaka JY, et al. Papillomas of the breast: factors associated with underestimation. European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP). 2018;27(4):310-4.
33. Böcker W, Kreipe H. Pathologie, 5. Auflage. München: Urban & Fischer Verlag; 2012. 811-26 p.
34. FA T, P D. Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of the Breast and Female Genital Organs. Press I, editor. Lyon2003.
35. Mylvaganam S, Toro C, Frank L, Vestey S, Thrush S. Phylloides tumours of the breast: best practice for follow-up. Updates in surgery. 2015;67(1):91-5.
36. P R, S C, JA C, DT A, MJ P. Challenges in management of phyllodes tumors of the breast: A retrospective analysis of 150 patients. Indian J Cancer. 2013;50:345-8.
37. Abdul Hamid S, Rahmat K, Ramli MT, Fadzli F, Jamaris S, See MH, et al. Radiopathological characteristics and outcomes of phyllodes tumor of the breast in Malaysian women. Medicine. 2018;97(31):e11412.
38. Sawalhi S, Al-Shatti M. Phyllodes tumor of the breast: a retrospective study of the impact of histopathological factors in local recurrence and distant metastasis. Annals of Saudi medicine. 2013;33(2):162-8.
39. Ditsatham C, Chongruksut W. Phyllodes tumor of the breast: diagnosis, management and outcome during a 10-year experience. Cancer management and research. 2019;11:7805-11.
40. Chao TC, Lo YF, Chen SC, Chen MF. Sonographic features of phyllodes tumors of the breast. Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2002;20(1):64-71.
41. Kilic MO, Terzioglu SG, Bozkurt B, Daglar G. Phyllodes Tumor of the Breast: Analysis of 48 Patients. The journal of breast health. 2016;12(4):158-64.
42. Tan BY, Acs G, Apple SK, Badve S, Bleiweiss IJ, Brogi E, et al. Phyllodes tumours of the breast: a consensus review. Histopathology. 2016;68(1):5-21.
43. Parker SJ, Harries SA. Phyllodes tumours. Postgraduate medical journal. 2001;77(909):428-35.
44. Venter AC, Rosca E, Daina LG, Mutiu G, Pirte AN, Rahota D. Phyllodes tumor: diagnostic imaging and histopathology findings. Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologie. 2015;56(4):1397-402.
45. Zhang Y, Kleer CG. Phyllodes Tumor of the Breast: Histopathologic Features, Differential Diagnosis, and Molecular/Genetic Updates. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2016;140(7):665-71.
46. Abusalem OT, Al-Masri A. Phyllodes Tumors of the Breast. Materia socio-medica. 2011;23(4):200-5.
47. Mishra SP, Tiwary SK, Mishra M, Khanna AK. Phyllodes tumor of breast: a review article. ISRN surgery. 2013;2013:361469.
48. Wiratkapun C, Piyapan P, Lertsithichai P, Larbcharoensub N. Fibroadenoma versus phyllodes tumor: distinguishing factors in patients diagnosed with fibroepithelial lesions after a core needle biopsy. Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey). 2014;20(1):27-33.
49. Bettendorf U, Fisseler-Eckhoff A. Die Rolle des Pathologen im Mammographiescreening, Mammakarzinom. Frauenarzt. 2008(49):825-35.
50. Reinfuss M, Mitus J, Duda K, Stelmach A, Rys J, Smolak K. The treatment and prognosis of patients with phyllodes tumor of the breast: an analysis of 170 cases. Cancer. 1996;77(5):910-6.
51. Chen WH, Cheng SP, Tzen CY, Yang TL, Jeng KS, Liu CL, et al. Surgical treatment of phyllodes tumors of the breast: retrospective review of 172 cases. Journal of surgical oncology. 2005;91(3):185-94.
52. Patterson JA, Scott M, Anderson N, Kirk SJ. Radial scar, complex sclerosing lesion and risk of breast cancer. Analysis of 175 cases in Northern Ireland. European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology. 2004;30(10):1065-8.
53. Jacobs TW, Byrne C, Colditz G, Connolly JL, Schnitt SJ. Radial scars in benign breast-biopsy specimens and the risk of breast cancer. The New England journal of medicine. 1999;340(6):430-6.
54. Sanders ME, Page DL, Simpson JF, Schuyler PA, Dale Plummer W, Dupont WD. Interdependence of radial scar and proliferative disease with respect to invasive breast carcinoma risk in patients with benign breast biopsies. Cancer. 2006;106(7):1453-61.
55. Donaldson A, Sieck L, Booth C, Calhoun B. Radial scars diagnosed on breast core biopsy: Frequency of atypia and carcinoma on excision and implications for management. Breast. 2016;30:201-7.
56. Rageth CJ, O'Flynn EA, Comstock C, Kurtz C, Kubik R, Madjar H, et al. First International Consensus Conference on lesions of uncertain malignant potential in the breast (B3 lesions). Breast cancer research and treatment. 2016;159(2):203-13.
57. Donaldson AR, Sieck L, Booth CN, Calhoun BC. Radial scars diagnosed on breast core biopsy: Frequency of atypia and carcinoma on excision and implications for management. Breast. 2016;30:201-7.
58. Rakha E, Beca F, D'Andrea M, Abbas A, Petrou-Nunn W, Shaaban AM, et al. Outcome of radial scar/complex sclerosing lesion associated with epithelial proliferations with atypia diagnosed on breast core biopsy: results from a multicentric UK-based study. Journal of clinical pathology. 2019.
59. A. AS, C. CL, A. CG. Radial scars and subsequent breast cancer risk: results from the Nurses’ Health Studies. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;139(1):277-85.
60. Noske A, Pahl S, Fallenberg E. Flat epithelial atypia is a common subtype of B3 lesions and is associated with noninvasive cancer but not with invasive cancer in final excision histology. Hum Pathol. 2010;41:522-7.
61. Lieske B, Ravichandran D, Alvi A. screen-detected breast lesions with an indeterminate (B3) core needle biopsy should be excised. European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology. 2008;34:1293-8.
62. Cheung AM, Chaudhry R, Kapral M. Perimenopausal and Postmenopausal Health. BMC Womens Health. 2004;4:21-3.
63. Jacobs TW, Connolly JL, Schnitt SJ. Nonmalignant lesions in breast core needle biopsies: to excise or not to excise? The American journal of surgical pathology. 2002;26(9):1095-110.
64. Forester ND, Lowes S, Mitchell E, Twiddy M. High risk (B3) breast lesions: what is the incidence of malignancy for individual lesion subtypes? A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2019;45:519-27.
65. Bianchi S, Caini S, Renne G, Cassano E, al. e. Positive predictive value for malignancy on surgical excision of breast lesions of uncertain malignant potential (B3) diagnosed by stereotactic vacuum-assisted needle core biopsy (VANCB): A large multi-institutional study in Italy. The Breast. 2011;20:264-70.
66. de Beça F, Rasteiro C, Correia A, Costa S, Amendoeira I. Improved malignancy prediction by B3 breast lesions subclassification. Annals of diagnostic pathology. 2013;17(5):434-6.
67. Dillon M, McDermott E, Hill A. Predicitive value of breast lesions of "uncertain malignant potential" and "suspicious for malignancy" determined by needle core biopsy. Annals of surgical oncology. 2007;14:704-11.
68. El-Sayed ME, Rakha EA, Reed J, Lee AH, Evans AJ, Ellis IO. Predictive value of needle core biopsy diagnoses of lesions of uncertain malignant potential (B3) in abnormalities detected by mammographic screening. Histopathology. 2008;53(6):650-7.
69. Hayes B, O`Doherty A, Quinn C. Correlation of needle core biopsy with excision histology in screendetected B3 lesions: the Merrion Breast Screening Unit experience. Journal of clinical pathology. 2009;62:1136-40.
70. Hoffmann O, Stamatis GA, Bittner AK, Arnold G, Schnabel R, Kruger K, et al. B3-lesions of the breast and cancer risk - an analysis of mammography screening patients. Molecular and clinical oncology. 2016;4(5):705-8.
71. Houssami N, Ciatto S, Bilous M, Vezzosi V, Bianchi S. Borderline breast core needle histology: predictive values for malignancy in lesions of uncertain malignant potential (B3). British Journal of Cancer. 2007;96(8):1253-7.
72. Lee AHS, Denley HE, Pinder SE, Ellis IO, Elston CW, Vujovic P, et al. Excision biopsy findings of patients with breast needle core biopsies reported as suspicious of malignancy (B4) or lesion of uncertain malignant potential (B3). Histopathology. 2003;42(4):331-6.
73. Lieske B, Ravichandran D, Alvi A, Lawrence DAS, Wright DJ. Screen-detected breast lesions with an indeterminate (B3) core needle biopsy should be excised. European journal of surgical oncology. 2008;34(12):1293-8.
74. Mayer S, Kayser G, Rücker G, Bögner D, Hirschfeld M, Hug C, et al. Absence of epithelial atypia in B3-lesions of the breast is associated with decreased risk for malignancy. The Breast. 2017;31:144-9.
75. Rakha E, Lee AHS, Jenkins J, Murphy A, Hamilton L, Ellis I. Characterization and outcome of breast needle core biopsy diagnoses of lesions of uncertain malignant potential (B3) in abnormalities detected by mammographic screening. International journal of cancer. 2011;129(6):1417-24.
76. Saladin C, Haueisen H, Kampmann G, Oehlschlegel C, Seifert B, Rageth L, et al. Lesions with unclear malignant potential (B3) after minimally invasive breast biopsy: evaluation of vacuum biopsies performed in Switzerland and recommended further management. Acta radiologica (Stockholm, Sweden : 1987). 2016;57(7):815-21.
77. El-Sayed M, Rakha E, Reed J. Predicitive value of needle core biopsy diagnoses of lesions of uncertain malignant potential (B3) in abnormalities detected by mammographic screening. Histopathology. 2008;53:650-7.
78. Carrillo M, Maturana G, Maiz C, Romero D, Dominguez F, Oddo D, et al. Breast lesions with atypia in percutaneous biopsies, managed with surgery in the last 10 years. Ecancermedicalscience. 2019;13:923.
79. Rakha E, Ho B, Naik V, Sen S, Hamilton L, Hodi Z, et al. Outcome of breast lesions diagnosed as lesion of uncertain malignant potential (B3) or suspicious of malignancy (B4) on needle core biopsy, including detailed review of epithelial atypia. Histopathology. 2011;58(4):626-32.
80. Yu C-C, Ueng S-H, Cheung Y-C, Shen S-C, Kuo W-L, Tsai H-P, et al. Predictors of underestimation of malignancy after image-guided core needle biopsy diagnosis of flat epithelial atypia or atypical ductal hyperplasia. The breast journal. 2015;21(3):224-32.
81. Purushothaman HN, Lekanidi K, Shousha S, Wilson R. Lesions of uncertain malignant potential in the breast (B3): what do we know? Clinical radiology. 2016;71(2):134-40.
82. Rakha EA, Ho BC, Naik V, Sen S, Hamilton LJ, Hodi Z, et al. Outcome of breast lesions diagnosed as lesion of uncertain malignant potential (B3) or suspicious of malignancy (B4) on needle core biopsy, including detailed review of epithelial atypia. Histopathology. 2011;58(4):626-32.
83. T K, X C, D W, P K, M Q, S L. Nomogram to predict the likelihood of upgrade of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed on a core needle biopsy in mammographically detected lesions. Histopathology. 2015;67(1):106-20.
84. Menes TS, Rosenberg R, Balch S, Jaffer S, Kerlikowske K, Miglioretti DL. Upgrade of high-risk breast lesions detected on mammography in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. American journal of surgery. 2014;207(1):24-31.
85. Hwang H, Barke L, Mendelson E. Atypical lobluar hyperplasia and classic lobular carcinoma in situ in core biopsy specimens: routine excision is not necessary. Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc. 2008;21(10):1208-16.
86. 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. Annals of surgical oncology. 2011;18(3):752-61.
87. Khoury T, Chen X, Wang D. Nomogram to predict the likelihood of upgrade of atypical ductal diagnosed on a core needle biopsy in mammographically detected lesions. Histopathology. 2015;67:106-20.
88. Calhoun BC, Collins LC. Recommendations for excision following core needle biopsy of the breast: a contemporary evaluation of the literature. Histopathology. 2016;68(1):138-51.
89. Rageth CJ, Rubenov R, Bronz C, Dietrich D, Tausch C, Rodewald A-K, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia and the risk of underestimation: tissue sampling method, multifocality, and associated calcification significantly influence the diagnostic upgrade rate based on subsequent surgical specimens. Breast Cancer. 2019;26(4):452-8.
90. Khoury T, Li Z, Sanati S, Desouki MM, Chen X, Wang D, et al. The risk of upgrade for atypical ductal hyperplasia detected on magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy: a study of 100 cases from four academic institutions. Histopathology. 2016;68(5):713-21.
91. Liberman L, Holland AE, Marjan D, Murray MP, Bartella L, Morris EA, et al. Underestimation of atypical ductal hyperplasia at MRI-guided 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. AJR American journal of roentgenology. 2007;188(3):684-90.
92. Perlet C, Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Heinig A, Sittek H, Casselman J, Anderson I, et al. Magnetic resonance-guided, vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: results from a European multicenter study of 538 lesions. Cancer. 2006;106(5):982-90.
93. Strigel RM, Eby PR, Demartini WB, Gutierrez RL, Allison KH, Peacock S, et al. Frequency, upgrade rates, and characteristics of high-risk lesions initially identified with breast MRI. AJR American journal of roentgenology. 2010;195(3):792-8.
94. Lamb LR, Bahl M, Gadd MA, Lehman CD. Flat Epithelial Atypia: Upgrade Rates and Risk-Stratification Approach to Support Informed Decision Making. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2017;225(6):696-701.
95. Atkins K, Cohen M, Nicholson B, Rao S. Atypical lobular hyperplasia and lobular carcinoma in situ at core breast biopsy: use of careful radiologic-pathologic correlation to recommend excision or observation. Radiology. 2013;269(2):340-7.
96. Lavoue V, Roger CM, Poilblanc M, Proust N, Monghal-Verge C, Sagan C, et al. Pure flat epithelial atypia (DIN 1a) on core needle biopsy: study of 60 biopsies with follow-up surgical excision. Breast cancer research and treatment. 2011;125(1):121-6.
97. Ingegnoli A, d'Aloia C, Frattaruolo A, Pallavera L, Martella E, Crisi G, et al. Flat epithelial atypia and atypical ductal hyperplasia: carcinoma underestimation rate. The breast journal. 2010;16(1):55-9.
98. Lee T-Y, Macintosh R, Rayson D, Barnes P. Flat epithelial atypia on breast needle core biopsy: a retrospective study with clinical-pathological correlation. The breast journal. 2010;16(4):377-83.
99. Rudin AV, Hoskin TL, Fahy A, Farrell AM, Nassar A, Ghosh K, et al. Flat Epithelial Atypia on Core Biopsy and Upgrade to Cancer: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Annals of surgical oncology. 2017;24(12):3549-58.
100. Lakhani S, Schnitt S, O`Malley F. World Health Organization classification of tumors of the breast. Lyon, France: International Agency of Research and Cancer (IARC); 2012.
101. Menon S, Porter GJ, Evans AJ, Ellis IO, Elston CW, Hodi Z, et al. The significance of lobular neoplasia on needle core biopsy of the breast. Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology. 2008;452(5):473-9.
102. Khoury T, Kumar PR, Li Z, Karabakhtsian RG, Sanati S, Chen X, et al. Lobular neoplasia detected in MRI-guided core biopsy carries a high risk for upgrade: a study of 63 cases from four different institutions. Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc. 2016;29(1):25-33.
103. Rendi MH, Dintzis SM, Lehman CD, Calhoun KE, Allison KH. Lobular in-situ neoplasia on breast core needle biopsy: imaging indication and pathologic extent can identify which patients require excisional biopsy. Annals of surgical oncology. 2012;19(3):914-21.
104. Chaudhary S, Lawrence L, McGinty G, Kostroff K, Bhuiya T. Classic lobular neoplasia on core biopsy: a clinical and radio-pathologic correlation study with follow-up excision biopsy. Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc. 2013;26(6):762-71.
105. Zhao C, Desouki M, Florea A, Mohammed K, Li X, Dabbs D. Pathologic findings of follow-up surgical excision for lobular neoplasia on breast core biopsy performed for calcification. American Journal of Clinical Pathology. 2012;138(1):72-8.
106. Cangiarella J, Guth A, Axelrod D, Darvishian F, Singh B, Simsir A, et al. Is Surgical Excision Necessary for the Management of Atypical Lobular Hyperplasia and Lobular Carcinoma In Situ Diagnosed on Core Needle Biopsy?: A Report of 38 Cases and Review of the Literature. Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine. 2008;132(6):979-83.
107. Brem R, Lechner M, KJackman R. Lobular neoplasia at percutaneous breast biopsy: variables associated with carcinomas at surgical excision. Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190:637-41.
108. Murray MP, Luedtke C, Liberman L, Nehhozina T, Akram M, Brogi E. Classic lobular carcinoma in situ and atypical lobular hyperplasia at percutaneous breast core biopsy: outcomes of prospective excision. Cancer. 2013;119(5):1073-9.
109. Muller KE, Roberts E, Zhao L, Jorns JM. Isolated Atypical Lobular Hyperplasia Diagnosed on Breast Biopsy: Low Upgrade Rate on Subsequent Excision With Long-Term Follow-up. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2018;142(3):391-5.
110. King TA, Pilewskie M, Muhsen S, Patil S, Mautner SK, Park A, et al. Lobular Carcinoma in Situ: A 29-Year Longitudinal Experience Evaluating Clinicopathologic Features and Breast Cancer Risk. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2015;33(33):3945-52.
111. Swapp RE, Glazebrook KN, Jones KN, Brandts HM, Reynolds C, Visscher DW, et al. Management of benign intraductal solitary papilloma diagnosed on core needle biopsy. Annals of surgical oncology. 2013;20(6):1900-5.
112. Han SH, Kim M, Chung YR, Yun B, Jang M, Kim SM, et al. Benign Intraductal Papilloma without Atypia on Core Needle Biopsy Has a Low Rate of Upgrading to Malignancy after Excision. Journal of breast cancer. 2018;21(1):80-6.
113. Rizzo M, Linebarger J, Lowe MC, Pan L, Gabram SG, Vasquez L, et al. Management of papillary breast lesions diagnosed on core-needle biopsy: clinical pathologic and radiologic analysis of 276 cases with surgical follow-up. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2012;214(3):280-7.
114. Pareja F, Corben AD, Brennan SB, Murray MP, Bowser ZL, Jakate K, et al. Breast intraductal papillomas without atypia in radiologic-pathologic concordant core-needle biopsies: Rate of upgrade to carcinoma at excision. Cancer. 2016;122(18):2819-27.
115. Hodorowicz-Zaniewska D, Siarkiewicz B, Brzuszkiewicz K, Szpor J. Underestimation of breast cancer in intraductal papillomas treated with vacuum-assisted core needle biopsy. Ginekologia polska. 2019;90(3):122-7.
116. Cheng TY, Chen CM, Lee MY, Lin KJ, Hung CF, Yang PS, et al. Risk factors associated with conversion from nonmalignant to malignant diagnosis after surgical excision of breast papillary lesions. Annals of surgical oncology. 2009;16(12):3375-9.
117. Bianchi S, Bendinelli B, Saladino V, Vezzosi V, Brancato B, Nori J, et al. Non-malignant breast papillary lesions - b3 diagnosed on ultrasound--guided 14-gauge needle core biopsy: analysis of 114 cases from a single institution and review of the literature. Pathology oncology research : POR. 2015;21(3):535-46.
118. Tennant SL, Evans A, Hamilton LJ, James J, Lee AH, Hodi Z, et al. Vacuum-assisted excision of breast lesions of uncertain malignant potential (B3) - an alternative to surgery in selected cases. Breast. 2008;17(6):546-9.
119. Liberman L, Tornos C, Huzjan R, Bartella L, Morris EA, Dershaw DD. Is surgical excision warranted after benign, concordant diagnosis of papilloma at percutaneous breast biopsy? AJR American journal of roentgenology. 2006;186(5):1328-34.
120. Jaffer S, Nagi C, Bleiweiss IJ. Excision is indicated for intraductal papilloma of the breast diagnosed on core needle biopsy. Cancer. 2009;115(13):2837-43.
121. Sohn V, Keylock J, Arthurs Z, Wilson A, Herbert G, Perry J, et al. Breast papillomas in the era of percutaneous needle biopsy. Annals of surgical oncology. 2007;14(10):2979-84.
122. Leithner D, Kaltenbach B, Hodl P, Mobus V, Brandenbusch V, Falk S, et al. Intraductal Papilloma Without Atypia on Image- Guided Breast Biopsy: Upgrade Rates to Carcinoma at Surgical Excision. Breast care (Basel, Switzerland). 2018;13(5):364-8.
123. Hodorowicz-Zaniewska D, Szpor J, Basta P. Intraductal papilloma of the breast - management. Ginekologia polska. 2019;90(2):100-3.
124. Bekes I, deGregorio A, deWaal A, Nerlich A, deWaal J, Janni W, et al. Review on current treatment options for lesions of uncertain malignant potential (B3 lesions) of the breast: do B3 papillary lesions need to be removed in any case by open surgery? Archives of gynecology and obstetrics. 2019;300(2):481-4.
125. Lawton TJ, Acs G, Argani P, Farshid G, Gilcrease M, Goldstein N, et al. Interobserver variability by pathologists in the distinction between cellular fibroadenomas and phyllodes tumors. International journal of surgical pathology. 2014;22(8):695-8.
126. McCarthy E, Kavanagh J, O'Donoghue Y, McCormack E, D'Arcy C, O'Keeffe SA. Phyllodes tumours of the breast: radiological presentation, management and follow-up. The British journal of radiology. 2014;87(1044):20140239.
127. Toh YF, Cheah PL, Looi LM, Teoh KH, Tan PH. Phyllodes tumours of the breast: retrospective analysis of a University Hospital's experience. The Malaysian journal of pathology. 2016;38(1):19-24.
128. Cowan ML, Argani P, Cimino-Mathews A. Benign and low-grade fibroepithelial neoplasms of the breast have low recurrence rate after positive surgical margins. Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc. 2016;29(3):259-65.
129. Ogunbiyi S, Perry A, Jakate K, Simpson J, George R. Phyllodes tumour of the breast and margins: How much is enough. Canadian journal of surgery Journal canadien de chirurgie. 2019;62(1`):E19-e21.
130. Qian Y, Quan ML, Ogilvi T, Bouchard-Fortier A. Surgical management of benign phyllodes tumours of the breast: Is wide local excision really necessary? Canadian journal of surgery Journal canadien de chirurgie. 2018;61(6):17617.
131. Mooney KL, Bassett LW, Apple SK. Upgrade rates of high-risk breast lesions diagnosed on core needle biopsy: a single-institution experience and literature review. Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc. 2016;29(12):1471-84.
132. Nassar A, Conners AL, Celik B, Jenkins SM, Smith CY, Hieken TJ. Radial scar/complex sclerosing lesions: a clinicopathologic correlation study from a single institution. Annals of diagnostic pathology. 2015;19(1):24-8.
133. Conlon N, D'Arcy C, Kaplan JB, Bowser ZL, Cordero A, Brogi E, et al. Radial Scar at Image-guided Needle Biopsy: Is Excision Necessary? The American journal of surgical pathology. 2015;39(6):779-85.
134. Bianchi S, Giannotti E, Vanzi E, Marziali M, Abdulcadir D, Boeri C, et al. Radial scar without associated atypical epithelial proliferation on image-guided 14-gauge needle core biopsy: analysis of 49 cases from a single-centre and review of the literature. Breast. 2012;21(2):159-64.
135. Ferreira AI, Borges S, Sousa A, Ribeiro C, Mesquita A, Martins PC, et al. Radial scar of the breast: Is it possible to avoid surgery? European journal of surgical oncology. 2017;43(7):1265-72.
136. Chou WYY, Veis DJ, Aft R. Radial scar on image-guided breast biopsy: is surgical excision necessary? Breast cancer research and treatment. 2018;170(2):313-20.
137. F N, S L, C D, SM W, A M, Golshan M. Complex sclerosing lesions and radial sclerosing lesions on core needle biops: Low risk of carcinoma on excision in cases with clinical and imaging concordance. Breast 2018;24:133-8.
138. Bacci J, MacGrogan G, Alran L, Labrot-Hurtevent G. Management of radial scars/complex sclerosing lesions of the breast diagnosed on vacuum-assisted large-core biopsy: is surgery always necessary? Histopathology. 2019.

Lizenz:

Urheberrechtsschutz

Fachbereich / Einrichtung:

Medizinische Fakultät

Dokument erstellt am:

14.03.2022

Dateien geändert am:

14.03.2022

Promotionsantrag am:

29.10.2021

Datum der Promotion:

22.02.2022

Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf

Dokument: Untersuchung über die Malignitätsrate von Brustläsionen mit unsicherem biologischen Potenzial (B3) im Rahmen eines retrospektiven Erhebungsverfahrens des interdisziplinären Brustzentrums des Universitätsklinikums Düsseldorf