Chiara Adriana Pistolese1, Tommaso Perretta1, Giulia Claroni1, Lucia Anemona2, Francesca Servadei2, Alberto Collura1, Michela Censi1, Marco Materazzo3, Marco Pellicciaro3, Feliciana Lamacchia4, Gianluca Vanni3. 1. Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, Division of Diagnostic Imaging, Policlinico Tor Vergata (PTV) University, Rome, Italy. 2. Anatomic Pathology, Department of Experimental Medicine, Policlinico Tor Vergata (PTV) University, Rome, Italy. 3. Breast Unit-Department of Surgical Science, Policlinico Tor Vergata (PTV) University, Rome, Italy. 4. Department of Biomedicine and Prevention, Division of Diagnostic Imaging, Policlinico Tor Vergata (PTV) University, Rome, Italy lamacchia.feliciana@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Male breast-cancer (MBC) is often diagnosed late. Our purpose was to evaluate fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) versus Tru-Cut biopsy (TCNB) in MBC diagnosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men with suspicious breast lesions were prospectively enrolled; 54 met the inclusion criteria and underwent FNAC and TCNB. FNAC, TCNB and gold-standard results were compared. RESULTS: Unsatisfactory results were 11.1% after FNAC and none after TCNB (p=0.027). After gold-standard evaluation, the diagnosis of FNAC and TCNB was confirmed, respectively, in 63.0% and 98.1% and changed in 37.0% and 1.9% (p<0.001). The malignancy rate after FNAC, TCNB and surgery were, respectively, 25.9%, 33.3% and 35.1% (FNAC vs. TCNB p=0.5276, FNAC vs. surgery p=0.404; TCNB vs. surgery p=1). Among invasive carcinomas, 93.8% were identified by FNAC vs. 87.5% by TCNB (p=1); all ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) were detected after TCNB and none after FNAC (p=0.1). CONCLUSION: FNAC leads to a significantly higher number of inadequate samplings and seems to be subject to increased DCIS misdiagnoses. TCNB correlated better to the final histological report. Copyright
BACKGROUND: Male breast-cancer (MBC) is often diagnosed late. Our purpose was to evaluate fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) versus Tru-Cut biopsy (TCNB) in MBC diagnosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men with suspicious breast lesions were prospectively enrolled; 54 met the inclusion criteria and underwent FNAC and TCNB. FNAC, TCNB and gold-standard results were compared. RESULTS: Unsatisfactory results were 11.1% after FNAC and none after TCNB (p=0.027). After gold-standard evaluation, the diagnosis of FNAC and TCNB was confirmed, respectively, in 63.0% and 98.1% and changed in 37.0% and 1.9% (p<0.001). The malignancy rate after FNAC, TCNB and surgery were, respectively, 25.9%, 33.3% and 35.1% (FNAC vs. TCNB p=0.5276, FNAC vs. surgery p=0.404; TCNB vs. surgery p=1). Among invasive carcinomas, 93.8% were identified by FNAC vs. 87.5% by TCNB (p=1); all ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) were detected after TCNB and none after FNAC (p=0.1). CONCLUSION:FNAC leads to a significantly higher number of inadequate samplings and seems to be subject to increased DCIS misdiagnoses. TCNB correlated better to the final histological report. Copyright
Authors: Bethany L Niell; Ana P Lourenco; Linda Moy; Paul Baron; Aarati D Didwania; Roberta M diFlorio-Alexander; Samantha L Heller; Anna I Holbrook; Huong T Le-Petross; Alana A Lewin; Tejas S Mehta; Priscilla J Slanetz; Ashley R Stuckey; Daymen S Tuscano; Gary A Ulaner; Nina S Vincoff; Susan P Weinstein; Mary S Newell Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Cheri Nguyen; Mark D Kettler; Michael E Swirsky; Vivian I Miller; Caleb Scott; Rhett Krause; Jennifer A Hadro Journal: Radiographics Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Paolo Orsaria; Dimitrios Varvaras; Gianluca Vanni; Giampiero Pagnani; Jacopo Scaggiante; Federico Frusone; Alessandra Vittoria Granai; Giuseppe Petrella; Oreste Claudio Buonomo Journal: Int J Breast Cancer Date: 2014-02-11