Sentinel node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in biopsy-proven node-positive breast cancer: the SN FNAC study.

PURPOSE: An increasing proportion of patients (> 30%) with node-positive breast cancer will obtain an axillary pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). If sentinel node (SN) biopsy (SNB) is accurate in this setting, completion node dissection (CND) morbidity could be avoided. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the prospective multicentric SN FNAC study, patients with biopsy-proven node-positive breast cancer (T0-3, N1-2) underwent both SNB and CND. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) use was mandatory, and SN metastases of any size, including isolated tumor cells (ypN0[i+], ≤ 0.2 mm), were considered positive. The optimal SNB identification rate (IR) ≥ 90% and false-negative rate (FNR) ≤ 10% were predetermined. RESULTS: From March 2009 to December 2012, 153 patients were accrued to the study. The SNB IR was 87.6% (127 of 145; 95% CI, 82.2% to 93.0%), and the FNR was 8.4% (seven of 83; 95% CI, 2.4% to 14.4%). If SN ypN0(i+)s had been considered negative, the FNR would have increased to 13.3% (11 of 83; 95% CI, 6.0% to 20.6%). There was no correlation between size of SN metastases and rate of positive non-SNs. Using this method, 30.3% of patients could potentially avoid CND. CONCLUSION: In biopsy-proven node-positive breast cancer after NAC, a low SNB FNR (8.4%) can be achieved with mandatory use of IHC. SN metastases of any size should be considered positive. The SNB IR was 87.6%, and in the presence of a technical failure, axillary node dissection should be performed. We recommend that SN evaluation with IHC be further evaluated before being included in future guidelines on the use of SNB after NAC in this setting.

Surgical outcome of biopsy-proven lobular neoplasia: is there any difference between lobular carcinoma in situ and atypical lobular hyperplasia?

OBJECTIVE: The aims of our study were to determine the frequency of malignancy after surgical excision of biopsy-proven lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) or atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH) lesions, to assess any difference between pure LCIS and pure ALH lesions regarding their radiologic presentation and the malignancy upgrade rate after surgical excision, and to evaluate the outcome of lesions that were not excised surgically but were followed up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiologic and pathologic records of 14,435 imaging-guided needle biopsies of the breast performed between 2004 and 2008 in three different institutions were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 126 patients (0.9%) had biopsy-proven LCIS or ALH, or both, as the highest-risk lesion. Among the 126 patients, 89 (71%) continued to surgery, and 14 were followed up for more than 24 months. The Mantel-Haensel chi-square test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Cancer upgrade was documented in 17 of the 43 LCIS (40%), 11 of the 40 ALH (27%), and two of the six combined ALH and LCIS lesions (33%) surgically excised, for a total malignancy upgrade rate of 34% (30/89). Both LCIS and ALH lesions presented mammographically in most cases as microcalcifications (p = 0.078). None of the 14 patients followed up for a mean period of 51 months showed development of malignancy. CONCLUSION: No statistically significant difference was found between mammographic presentation and postsurgical outcome of LCIS versus ALH lesions. Surgical excision of these lesions is recommended as long as no evident criteria are provided to differentiate those that might be associated with an underlying malignancy.

Sonographic and mammographic appearances of breast hemangioma.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to retrospectively evaluate the clinical, imaging, and pathologic findings of breast hemangiomas in 16 patients. CONCLUSION: A mass displaying an oval or lobular shape with well-circumscribed or microlobulated margins on mammography and sonography, and in a superficial location, should alert the radiologist to the possible diagnosis of hemangioma. Imaging-guided biopsy appears sufficiently reliable to rule out any malignant or premalignant component and to avoid a surgical excision if doing so is clinically appropriate.

Sonographic features of breast carcinoma presenting as masses in BRCA gene mutation carriers.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to review the sonographic features of breast cancer gene BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated breast carcinomas in comparison with "sporadic" breast carcinomas and benign breast masses. METHODS: Sonograms of 233 breast masses, including 33 BRCA-associated malignant masses (BRCA1, 15; BRCA2, 18), 148 sporadic malignant masses, and 52 benign masses, were reviewed by consensus by 2 radiologists according to American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) terminology. RESULTS: Most of the sporadic and BRCA1-and BRCA2-associated cancers displayed an irregular shape (91.2%, 93.3%, and 83.3%, respectively). BRCA1-associated cancers showed microlobulated margins in 53.3% versus 33.8% (sporadic) and 33.3% (BRCA2). A parallel orientation was most frequently encountered in BRCA1-associated lesions (46.7%) versus sporadic (33.8%) and BRCA2 (33.3%), whereas posterior acoustic shadowing was least frequently seen in BRCA1-associated lesions (13.3%) versus BRCA2 (16.7%) and sporadic (31.1%). Most (73.3%) of the BRCA1-associated lesions were classified as BI-RADS category 4, whereas most of the sporadic and BRCA2-associated lesions were classified as BI-RADS category 5 (66.2% and 72.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Sonographic features of BRCA-associated and sporadic breast carcinomas do not differ substantially. BRCA1-associated breast carcinomas trend toward less malignant sonographic characteristics, but strict application of the BI-RADS categorizations demands that they be classified as category 4 or 5.

Waiting for a breast biopsy. Psychosocial consequences and coping strategies.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this pilot/feasibility study was to describe the experience of women presenting with a suspicious mammogram who are waiting for a breast biopsy and to identify those at risk for distress. METHODS: Participants (n=25) were interviewed at two time points: immediately after being put on the waiting list (T1) and again immediately before their biopsy approximately 6 weeks later (T2). Self-report measures of distress and coping were used. Perceived personal risk of a positive biopsy finding and information needs were assessed through open-ended questions. RESULTS: Distress levels were high in this sample. Using cognitive-avoidant coping strategies, being employed, history of previous biopsies, and having a family history of breast cancer were associated with greater distress. Perceived personal risk of a positive biopsy finding was overestimated in one half of the cases and was correlated with greater distress. CONCLUSION: Waiting period between suspicious mammogram and breast biopsy may be a time of high distress for many women.