Sarah Martaindale1, Toma S Omofoye2, Davis C Teichgraeber2, Kenneth R Hess3, Gary J Whitman2. 1. The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer, Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Division of Diagnostic Imaging, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1350, Houston, TX 77030. Electronic address: smartaindale@mdanderson.org. 2. The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer, Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Division of Diagnostic Imaging, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1350, Houston, TX 77030. 3. The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer, Department of Biostatistics, Houston, Texas.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: We investigated if imaging or pathology features could determine when imaging follow-up is appropriate after diagnosis of radial scar on digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT)-guided core needle biopsy (CNB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of all patients diagnosed with radial scars on DBT-guided CNB at our institution between November 2014 and December 2016. Cases were excluded if DCIS or invasive malignancy was present in the same core specimens. Patient age; needle size; number of cores; visibility on full-field digital mammography versus DBT; lesion size; presence of architectural distortion, mass, or calcifications; imaging stability; presence or absence of atypia; length of imaging follow-up, and excisional pathology were collected. RESULTS: Of 45 eligible biopsies, 6 cases had radial scars with associated atypia and 39 cases had no associated atypia. Twenty-four patients underwent surgical excision, including all patients with atypia on CNB. One case (4%) was upstaged to DCIS on surgical excision after CNB revealed a radial scar with associated ADH. There was also a case without atypia on CNB, but excisional pathology revealed associated ADH. In cases with radial scars and associated atypia on CNB, the upstage rate was 17%. In cases without atypia on CNB that underwent surgical excision, the upstage rate was 0%. Imaging follow-up was available in 13 patients who did not undergo surgical excision, with stability in all 13 with a median follow-up of 18 months. CONCLUSION: Annual imaging follow-up appears reasonable in selected patients with radial scars but no atypia on DBT-guided CNB.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: We investigated if imaging or pathology features could determine when imaging follow-up is appropriate after diagnosis of radial scar on digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT)-guided core needle biopsy (CNB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of all patients diagnosed with radial scars on DBT-guided CNB at our institution between November 2014 and December 2016. Cases were excluded if DCIS or invasive malignancy was present in the same core specimens. Patient age; needle size; number of cores; visibility on full-field digital mammography versus DBT; lesion size; presence of architectural distortion, mass, or calcifications; imaging stability; presence or absence of atypia; length of imaging follow-up, and excisional pathology were collected. RESULTS: Of 45 eligible biopsies, 6 cases had radial scars with associated atypia and 39 cases had no associated atypia. Twenty-four patients underwent surgical excision, including all patients with atypia on CNB. One case (4%) was upstaged to DCIS on surgical excision after CNB revealed a radial scar with associated ADH. There was also a case without atypia on CNB, but excisional pathology revealed associated ADH. In cases with radial scars and associated atypia on CNB, the upstage rate was 17%. In cases without atypia on CNB that underwent surgical excision, the upstage rate was 0%. Imaging follow-up was available in 13 patients who did not undergo surgical excision, with stability in all 13 with a median follow-up of 18 months. CONCLUSION: Annual imaging follow-up appears reasonable in selected patients with radial scars but no atypia on DBT-guided CNB.