Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

High-Risk Lesions at Minimally Invasive Breast Biopsy: Now What?

  • Breast Imaging (H Ojeda-Fournier, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Radiology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this section is to provide a detailed review of high-risk lesions and their associated risk of upgrade at surgical excision in order to guide in management and appropriate risk reduction strategies.

Recent Findings

“High-risk” breast lesions refer to an eclectic group of histologic abnormalities associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. Current data show a vast disparity in upgrade rates upon surgical excision for high-risk lesions, which leads to confusing and often conflicting recommendations. There has been suggestion in the media that breast biopsies lead to “over-diagnosis” and unnecessary breast surgeries. However, the goal of breast imagers is to detect early cancers, and in doing so, the recommendation for surgical excision of the appropriate high-risk lesions is necessary.

Summary

In managing high-risk lesions we must balance the opportunity to diagnose early, curable breast cancer by recommending surgical excision with prudent and conservative management along with careful radiologic and pathologic correlation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Recht A, Allred DC, Harms SE, Holland R, et al. Image-detected breast cancer: state of the art diagnosis and treatment. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;201(4):586–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gutwein LG, Ang DN, Liu H, Marshall JK, Hochwald SN, Copeland EM, Grobmyer SR. Utilization of minimally invasive breast biopsy for the evaluation of suspicious breast lesions. Am J Surg. 2011;202(2):127–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jackman RJ, Marzoni FA Jr, Rosenberg J. False-negative diagnoses at stereotactic vacuum-assisted needle breast biopsy: long-term follow-up of 1,280 lesions and review of the literature. Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192(2):341–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brem RF, Behrndt VS, Sanow L, Gatewood OM. Atypical ductal hyperplasia: histologic underestimation of carcinoma in tissue harvested from impalpable breast lesions using 11-gauge stereotactically guided directional vacuum-assisted biopsy. Am J Roentgenol. 1999;172(5):1405–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Brem RF, Lechner MC, Jackman RJ, Rapelyea JA, Evans WP, Philpotts LE, et al. Lobular neoplasia at percutaneous breast biopsy: variables associated with carcinoma at surgical excision. Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190(3):637–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Nakhlis F, Gilmore L, Gelman R, Bedrosian I, Ludwig K, Hwang ES, et al. Incidence of adjacent synchronous invasive carcinoma and/or ductal carcinoma in situ in patients with lobular neoplasia on core biopsy: results from a prospective multi-institutional registry (TBCRC 020). Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(3):722–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bianchi S, Bendinelli B, Saladino V, Vezzosi V, Brancato B, Nori J, Palli D. Non-malignant breast papillary lesions-B3 diagnosed on ultrasound-guided 14-gauge needle core biopsy: analysis of 114 cases from a single institution and review of the literature. Pathol Oncol Res. 2015;21(3):535–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Philpotts LE, Shaheen NA, Jain KS, Carter D, Lee CH. Uncommon high-risk lesions of the breast diagnosed at stereotactic core-needle biopsy: clinical importance 1. Radiology. 2000;216(3):831–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. López-Medina A, Cintora E, Múgica B, Operé E, Vela AC, Ibañez T. Radial scars diagnosed at stereotactic core-needle biopsy: surgical biopsy findings. Eur Radiol. 2006;16(8):1803–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Brenner RJ, Jackman RJ, Parker SH, Evans WP III, Philpotts L, Deutch BM, et al. Percutaneous core needle biopsy of radial scars of the breast: when is excision necessary? Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179(5):1179–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kim MJ, Kim EK, Kwak JY, Son EJ, Park BW, Kim SI, Oh KK. Nonmalignant papillary lesions of the breast at US-guided directional vacuum-assisted removal: a preliminary report. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(9):1774–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. • Youk JH, Kim EK, Kwak JY, Son EJ, Park BW, Kim SI. Benign papilloma without atypia diagnosed at US-guided 14-gauge core-needle biopsy: clinical and US features predictive of upgrade to malignancy 1. Radiology. 2011;258(1):81–88. This study addresses the controversy/lack of agreement on the management of benign papillomas diagnosed with imaging-guided core needle biopsy. It summarizes and compares its findings with the most relevant publications on benign papilloma at percutaneous core needle biopsies.

  13. Liberman L, Holland AE, Marjan D, Murray MP, Bartella L, Morris EA, et al. Underestimation of atypical ductal hyperplasia at MRI-guided 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188(3):684–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Grady D (2015) Breast biopsies leave room for doubt, study finds. Retrieved April 11, 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/health/breast-biopsies-dcis-atypia-diagnosis-leave-room-for-doubt.html?_r=0.

  15. Szabo L (2017) Third of breast cancer patients treated unnecessarily, study says. CNN. Cable News Network. Retrieved May 15, 2017, from http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/health/breast-cancer-unnecessary-treatment-study-partner/.

  16. Kettritz U, Rotter K, Schreer I, Murauer M, Schulz-Wendtland R, Peter D, Heywang-Köbrunner SH. Stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in 2874 patients. Cancer. 2004;100(2):245–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Burak WE, Owens KE, Tighe MB, Kemp L, Dinges SA, Hitchcock CL, Olsen J. Vacuum-assisted stereotactic breast biopsy: histologic underestimation of malignant lesions. Arch Surg. 2000;135(6):700–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Grady I, Gorsuch H, Wilburn-Bailey S. Ultrasound-guided, vacuum-assisted, percutaneous excision of breast lesions: an accurate technique in the diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;201(1):14–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rosen PP. Breast pathology: diagnosis by needle core biopsy. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Helvie MA, Hessler C, Frank TS, Ikeda DM. Atypical hyperplasia of the breast: mammographic appearance and histologic correlation. Radiology. 1991;179(3):759–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mesurolle B, Perez JCH, Azzumea F, Lemercier E, Xie X, Aldis A, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at sonographically guided core needle biopsy: frequency, final surgical outcome, and factors associated with underestimation. Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202(6):1389–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kohr JR, Eby PR, Allison KH, DeMartini WB, Gutierrez RL, Peacock S, Lehman CD. Risk of upgrade of atypical ductal hyperplasia after stereotactic breast biopsy: effects of number of foci and complete removal of calcifications 1. Radiology. 2010;255(3):723–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Liberman L, Smolkin JH, Dershaw DD, Morris EA, Abramson AF, Rosen PP. Calcification retrieval at stereotactic, 11-gauge, directional, vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Radiology. 1998;208(1):251–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. •• Verheyden C, Pages-Bouic E, Balleyguier C, Cherel P, Lepori D, Laffargue G, et al. Underestimation rate at MR imaging–guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: a multi-institutional retrospective study of 1509 breast biopsies. Radiology. 2016;281(3):708–19. This multi-institutional retrospective review is one of the largest, most up to date studies evaluating the underestimation rate of ADH and DCIS at MRI-guided vacuum-assisted biopsy. Its large sample size resulted in a much lower ADH underestimation rate (25%) compared to the underestimation rates found in smaller single- institution studies (50-56%).

  25. Lourenco AP, Khalil H, Sanford M, Donegan L. High-risk lesions at MRI-guided breast biopsy: frequency and rate of underestimation. Am J Roentgenol. 2014;203(3):682–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. • Ahn HS, Jang M, Kim SM, La Yun B, Kim SW, Kang EY, Park SY. Diagnosis of columnar cell lesions and atypical ductal hyperplasia by ultrasound-guided core biopsy: findings associated with underestimation of breast carcinoma. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2016;42(7):1457–63. This study reported lower ADH upgrade rates compared to previous studies. However, it also demonstrated a correlation between the presence of calcifications on ultrasound and the underestimation of CCLs and ADH detected by US-guided core needle biopsy which suggests that these lesions require excision.

  27. Lee SH, Kim EK, Kim MJ, Moon HJ, Yoon JH. Vacuum-assisted breast biopsy under ultrasonographic guidance: analysis of a 10-year experience. Ultrasonography. 2014;33(4):259–66.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Bevers TB, Anderson BO, Bonaccio E, Buys S, Daly MB, Dempsey PJ, et al. Breast cancer screening and diagnosis. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2009;7(10):1060–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Chen L, Li Y, Fu Y, Peng J, Mo MH, Stamatakos M, et al. Role of deregulated microRNAs in breast cancer progression using FFPE tissue. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(1):e54213.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Degnim AC, Visscher DW, Berman HK, Frost MH, Sellers TA, Vierkant RA, et al. Stratification of breast cancer risk in women with atypia: a Mayo cohort study. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(19):2671–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, Harms S, Leach MO, Lehman CD, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA. 2007;57(2):75–89.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, Redmond CK, Kavanah M, Cronin WM, Wolmark N. Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: report of the national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project P-1 study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90(18):1371–88. doi:10.1093/jnci/90.18.1371.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Vogel VG, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, Cronin WM, Cecchini RS, Atkins JN, et al. Effects of tamoxifen vs raloxifene on the risk of developing invasive breast cancer and other disease outcomes: the NSABP Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) P-2 trial. JAMA. 2006;295(23):2727–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Liberman L, Sama M, Susnik B, Rosen PP, LaTrenta LR, Morris EA, et al. Lobular carcinoma in situ at percutaneous breast biopsy: surgical biopsy findings. Am J Roentgenol. 1999;173(2):291–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW, Rados MS. Atypical hyperplastic lesions of the female breast. A long-term follow-up study. Cancer. 1959.

  36. Lewis JL, Lee DY, Tartter PI. The significance of lobular carcinoma in situ and atypical lobular hyperplasia of the breast. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(13):4124–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Shah-Khan MG, Geiger XJ, Reynolds C, Jakub JW, DePeri ER, Glazebrook KN. Long-term follow-up of lobular neoplasia (atypical lobular hyperplasia/lobular carcinoma in situ) diagnosed on core needle biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(10):3131–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Zhao C, Desouki MM, Florea A, Mohammed K, Li X, Dabbs D. Pathologic findings of follow-up surgical excision for lobular neoplasia on breast core biopsy performed for calcification. Am J Clin Pathol. 2012;138(1):72–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Nagi CS, O’donnell JE, Tismenetsky M, Bleiweiss IJ, Jaffer SM. Lobular neoplasia on core needle biopsy does not require excision. Cancer. 2008;112(10):2152–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Elsheikh TM, Silverman JF. Follow-up surgical excision is indicated when breast core needle biopsies show atypical lobular hyperplasia or lobular carcinoma in situ: a correlative study of 33 patients with review of the literature. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29(4):534–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. O’malley FP. Lobular neoplasia: morphology, biological potential and management in core biopsies. Mod Pathol. 2010;23:S14–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Chen YY, Hwang ES, Roy R, DeVries S, Anderson J, Wa C, et al. Genetic and phenotypic characteristics of pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009;33(11):1683.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Flanagan MR, Rendi MH, Calhoun KE, Anderson BO, Javid SH. Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ: radiologic-pathologic features and clinical management. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(13):4263–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Downs-Kelly E, Bell D, Perkins GH, Sneige N, Middleton LP. Clinical implications of margin involvement by pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011;135(6):737–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Khoury T, Karabakhtsian RG, Mattson D, Yan L, Syriac S, Habib F, et al. Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast: clinicopathological review of 47 cases. Histopathology. 2014;64(7):981–93.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Pieri A, Harvey J, Bundred N. Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast: can the evidence guide practice? World J Clin Oncol. 2014;5(3):546.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Blair SL, Emerson DK, Kulkarni S, Hwang ES, Malcarne V, Ollila DW. Breast surgeon’s survey: no consensus for surgical treatment of pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ. Breast J. 2013;19(1):116–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Agoff SN, Lawton TJ. Papillary lesions of the breast with and without atypical ductal hyperplasia. Am J Clin Pathol. 2004;122(3):440–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Seely JM, Verma R, Kielar A, Smyth KR, Hack K, Taljaard M, et al. Benign papillomas of the breast diagnosed on large-gauge vacuum biopsy compared with 14 gauge core needle biopsy—do they require surgical excision? Breast J. 2016;23(2):146–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Eiada R, Chong J, Kulkarni S, Goldberg F, Muradali D. Papillary lesions of the breast: MRI, ultrasound, and mammographic appearances. Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198(2):264–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Daniel BL, Gardner RW, Birdwell RL, Nowels KW, Johnson D. Magnetic resonance imaging of intraductal papilloma of the breast. Magn Reson Imaging. 2003;21(8):887–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Rizzo M, Lund MJ, Oprea G, Schniederjan M, Wood WC, Mosunjac M. Surgical follow-up and clinical presentation of 142 breast papillary lesions diagnosed by ultrasound-guided core-needle biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15(4):1040–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Gendler LS, Feldman SM, Balassanian R, Riker MA, Frencher SK, Whelan DB, et al. Association of breast cancer with papillary lesions identified at percutaneous image-guided breast biopsy. Am J Surg. 2004;188(4):365–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Valdes EK, Tartter PI, Genelus-Dominique E, Guilbaud DA, Rosenbaum-Smith S, Estabrook A. Significance of papillary lesions at percutaneous breast biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13(4):480–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Renshaw AA, Derhagopian RP, Tizol-Blanco DM, Gould EW. Papillomas and atypical papillomas in breast core needle biopsy specimens. Am J Clin Pathol. 2004;122(2):217–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Destounis S, Seifert P, Somerville P, Murphy P, Morgan R, Arieno A, Young WL. Underestimation of papillary breast lesions by core biopsy: correlation to surgical excision. Breast Cancer. 2014;21(2):128–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Foley NM, Racz JM, Al-Hilli Z, Livingstone V, Cil T, Holloway CMB, et al. An international multicenter review of the malignancy rate of excised papillomatous breast lesions. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(3):385–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Kim MJ, Kim SI, Youk JH, Moon HJ, Kwak JY, Park BW, Kim EK. The diagnosis of non-malignant papillary lesions of the breast: comparison of ultrasound-guided automated gun biopsy and vacuum-assisted removal. Clin Radiol. 2011;66(6):530–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Mercado CL, Hamele-Bena D, Oken SM, Singer CI, Cangiarella J. Papillary lesions of the breast at percutaneous core-needle biopsy 1. Radiology. 2006;238(3):801–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Ferreira AI, Borges S, Sousa A, Ribeiro C, Mesquita A, Martins PC, et al. Radial scar of the breast: Is it possible to avoid surgery? Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017.

  61. Sloane JP, Mayers MM. Carcinoma and atypical hyperplasia in radial scars and complex sclerosing lesions: importance of lesion size and patient age. Histopathology. 1993;23(3):225–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Andacoglu O, Kanbour-Shakir A, Teh YC, Bonaventura M, Ozbek U, Anello M, et al. Rationale of excisional biopsy after the diagnosis of benign radial scar on core biopsy: a single institutional outcome analysis. Am J Clin Oncol. 2013;36(1):7–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Kim EMH, Hankins A, Cassity J, McDonald D, White B, Rowberry R, et al. Isolated radial scar diagnosis by core-needle biopsy: is surgical excision necessary? SpringerPlus. 2016;5(1):398.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Leong RY, Kohli MK, Zeizafoun N, Liang A, Tartter PI. Radial scar at percutaneous breast biopsy that does not require surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;223(5):712–6. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2016.08.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Lv M, Zhu X, Zhong S, Chen W, Hu Q, Ma T, et al. Radial scars and subsequent breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(7):e102503.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Aroner SA, Collins LC, Connolly JL, Colditz GA, Schnitt SJ, Rosner BA, et al. Radial scars and subsequent breast cancer risk: results from the Nurses’ Health Studies. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;139(1):277–85.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Berg JC, Visscher DW, Vierkant RA, Pankratz VS, Maloney SD, Lewis JT, et al. Breast cancer risk in women with radial scars in benign breast biopsies. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;108(2):167–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Schnitt SJ. The diagnosis and management of pre-invasive breast disease: flat epithelial atypia—classification, pathologic features and clinical significance. Breast Cancer Res. 2003;5(5):263.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Tavassoli FA, Devilee P. Pathology and genetics of tumours of the breast and female genital organs. Lyon: IARC Press; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Solorzano S, Mesurolle B, Omeroglu A, El Khoury M, Kao E, Aldis A, Meterissian S. Flat epithelial atypia of the breast: pathological-radiological correlation. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197(3):740–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Peres A, Barranger E, Becette V, Boudinet A, Guinebretiere JM, Cherel P. Rates of upgrade to malignancy for 271 cases of flat epithelial atypia (FEA) diagnosed by breast core biopsy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;133(2):659–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Berry JS, Trappey AF, Vreeland TJ, Pattyn AR, Clifton GT, Berry EA, et al. Analysis of clinical and pathologic factors of pure, flat epithelial atypia on core needle biopsy to aid in the decision of excision or observation. J Cancer. 2016;7(1):1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Acott AA, Mancino AT. Flat epithelial atypia on core needle biopsy, must we surgically excise? Am J Surg. 2016;212(6):1211–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Rosen PP. Mucocele-like tumors of the breast. Am J Surg Pathol. 1986;10(7):464–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Renshaw AA. Can mucinous lesions of the breast be reliably diagnosed by core needle biopsy? Am J Clin Pathol. 2002;118(1):82–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Sutton B, Davion S, Feldman M, Siziopikou K, Mendelson E, Sullivan M. Mucocele-like lesions diagnosed on breast core biopsy. Am J Clin Pathol. 2012;138(6):783–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Ha D, Dialani V, Mehta TS, Keefe W, Iuanow E, Slanetz PJ. Mucocele-like lesions in the breast diagnosed with percutaneous biopsy: is surgical excision necessary? Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204(1):204–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Park YJ, Kim EK. A pure mucocele-like lesion of the breast diagnosed on ultrasonography-guided core-needle biopsy: is imaging follow-up sufficient? Ultrasonography. 2015;34(2):133.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

We would like to acknowledge and thank our research assistants Adriana M. Bazoberry, BS and Christel Velasco, MD for helping us prepare the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging and Interventional Center, The George Washington University, 2300 M St, NW, Washington, DC, 20037, USA

    Rachel F. Brem, Anita K. Mehta & Grace M. Thomas

Authors
  1. Rachel F. Brem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anita K. Mehta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Grace M. Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rachel F. Brem.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Rachel F. Brem is on the board of directors and holds stock in Dilon Technologies. Anita K. Mehta and Grace M. Thomas each declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical collection on Breast Imaging.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brem, R.F., Mehta, A.K. & Thomas, G.M. High-Risk Lesions at Minimally Invasive Breast Biopsy: Now What?. Curr Radiol Rep 5, 45 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40134-017-0238-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40134-017-0238-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation