ACLS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Darvishian, F.
Right arrow Articles by Cangiarella, J. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Darvishian, F.
Right arrow Articles by Cangiarella, J. F.
Annals of Clinical & Laboratory Science 39:270-276 (2009)
© 2009 Association of Clinical Scientists

Atypia on Breast Core Needle Biopsies: Reproducibility and Significance

Farbod Darvishian1, Baljit Singh1, Aylin Simsir1, Weimin Ye2 and Joan F. Cangiarella1
1 Department of Pathology, New York University Medical Center, New York, New York2 Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden

Address correspondence to Farbod Darvishian, M.D., Department of Pathology, New York University Medical Center, 530 First Avenue (SK7N), New York, NY 10016, USA; tel 212 263 0138; fax 212 263 5509; e-mail farbod.darvishian{at}nyumc.org.

This study analyzes the interobserver variability in interpreting atypia on breast core needle biopsies and in each category of atypia calculates the upgrade risk of carcinoma in the subsequent surgical excision. We identified 51 cases of atypia on breast core needle biopsies performed at our institution from January 2003 to August 2006. The atypia was classified into 4 categories: atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH), flat epithelial atypia (FEA), and atypia of undetermined significance (AUS). After a tutorial session, these cases were independently reviewed by four pathologists, whose overall multi-rater kappa value for agreement on different categories of atypia was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.69–0.89), which is within the substantial agreement range. The upgrade risk in each category of atypia was as follows: ADH 20% (p = 0.04); ALH 10% (p = 0.6); FEA 16.6% (p = 0.23), and AUS 100% (p = 0.96). Based on our findings, we conclude that follow-up excision should be performed after a diagnosis of ADH. The upgrade risk did not reach statistical significance in ALH or FEA. Although follow-up excision cannot be strongly recommended in ALH and FEA, it should be considered since the upgrade risk is not negligible. Strict adherence to the diagnostic criteria and tutorial sessions can help pathologists to achieve substantial agreement in interpreting atypia on breast core needle biopsies.

Keywords: breast cancer, breast core needle biopsy, epithelial atypia, surgical pathology quality assurance






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by the Association of Clinical Scientists.