Literature DB >> 30579653

High risk (B3) breast lesions: What is the incidence of malignancy for individual lesion subtypes? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Nerys Dawn Forester1, Simon Lowes2, Elizabeth Mitchell3, Maureen Twiddy3.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Provide evidence to support evolving management strategies for high-risk (B3) breast lesions by assessing risk of carcinoma in subgroups of B3 lesions using systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS: Databases identified observational studies between 1980 and 2015 that reported on underestimation of malignancy following B3 lesion diagnosis at core needle biopsy. Critical appraisal, quality assessment, data extraction and meta-analysis was undertaken to calculate rate of malignancy of the whole B3 group and individual lesions. Study heterogeneity and association between variables and underestimation rate was investigated using random effects logistic modelling.
RESULTS: Meta-analysis, using data from 129 studies, assessed 11 423 lesions of which 2160 were upgraded to malignancy after surgical excision biopsy (17% malignancy rate, 95% CI 15-19%). Malignancy rates varied from 6% in radial scars with no atypia (95% CI 2-13%, I2 72.8%), to 32% in papillomas with atypia (95% CI 23-41%, I2 57.4%). Differences in upgrade rates between atypical and non-atypical lesions were statistically significant (p < 0.05). Study heterogeneity could not be explained by differences in core biopsy size or year of publication.
CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive, inclusive assessment of all published literature, provides an accurate estimate of malignancy risk in subgroups of B3 lesions, to guide tailored management strategies. Some lesions have a high risk of malignancy, while others have a much lower risk, and could be safely managed with surveillance strategies rather than surgery. Crown
Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  B3 breast lesions; Breast cancer; Lesions of uncertain malignant potential

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30579653     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2018.12.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol        ISSN: 0748-7983            Impact factor:   4.424


  9 in total

1.  Malignancy Rate and Malignancy Risk Assessment in Different Lesions of Uncertain Malignant Potential in the Breast (B3 Lesions): An Analysis of 192 Cases from a Single Institution.

Authors:  Svjetlana Mohrmann; Anna Maier-Bode; Frederic Dietzel; Petra Reinecke; Natalia Krawczyk; Thomas Kaleta; Ulrike Kreimer; Gerald Antoch; Tanja N Fehm; Katrin Sabine Roth
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 2.268

2.  Breast microcalcifications: the UK RCR 5-point breast imaging system or BI-RADS; which is the better predictor of malignancy?

Authors:  Linda Metaxa; Nuala A Healy; Sylvia A O'Keeffe
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-08-09       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Diagnostic value of radiomics and machine learning with dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for patients with atypical ductal hyperplasia in predicting malignant upgrade.

Authors:  Roberto Lo Gullo; Kerri Vincenti; Carolina Rossi Saccarelli; Peter Gibbs; Michael J Fox; Isaac Daimiel; Danny F Martinez; Maxine S Jochelson; Elizabeth A Morris; Jeffrey S Reiner; Katja Pinker
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2021-01-20       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 4.  High-risk lesions of the breast: concurrent diagnostic tools and management recommendations.

Authors:  Francesca Catanzariti; Daly Avendano; Giuseppe Cicero; Margarita Garza-Montemayor; Carmelo Sofia; Emmanuele Venanzi Rullo; Giorgio Ascenti; Katja Pinker-Domenig; Maria Adele Marino
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2021-05-26

5.  Breast screening atypia and subsequent development of cancer: protocol for an observational analysis of the Sloane database in England (Sloane atypia cohort study).

Authors:  David Jenkinson; Karoline Freeman; Karen Clements; Bridget Hilton; Joanne Dulson-Cox; Olive Kearins; Nigel Stallard; Matthew G Wallis; Nisha Sharma; Cliona Kirwan; Sarah Pinder; Elena Provenzano; Abeer M Shaaban; Hilary Stobart; Samantha McDonnell; Alastair M Thompson; Sian Taylor-Phillips
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-01-07       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia: Risk Factors for Predicting Pathologic Upgrade on Excisional Biopsy.

Authors:  Ko Woon Park; Boo-Kyung Han; Sun Jung Rhee; Soo Youn Cho; Eun Young Ko; Eun Sook Ko; Ji Soo Choi
Journal:  Taehan Yongsang Uihakhoe Chi       Date:  2021-10-18

7.  The patient's pathway for breast cancer in the COVID-19 era: An Italian single-center experience.

Authors:  Donato Casella; Daniele Fusario; Dario Cassetti; Simone Miccoli; Anna Lisa Pesce; Andrea Bernini; Marco Marcasciano; Federico Lo Torto; Alessandro Neri
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2020-06-28       Impact factor: 2.269

8.  Breast lesions excised via vacuum-assisted system: could we get any clues for B3 lesions before excision biopsy?

Authors:  Liang Zheng; Fufu Zheng; Zhaomin Xing; Yunjian Zhang; Yongxin Li; Hongbiao Xu; Yuanhui Lai; Jie Li; Wenjian Wang
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2021-05-29       Impact factor: 4.430

9.  Comparative Study of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) with and without Ultrasound versus Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in Detecting Breast Lesion.

Authors:  Janice Hui Ling Goh; Toh Leong Tan; Suraya Aziz; Iqbal Hussain Rizuana
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-01-11       Impact factor: 3.390

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.