Advertisement

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 158, Issue 2, pp 297–305 | Cite as

Breast fine needle aspiration continues to be relevant in a large academic medical center: experience from Massachusetts General Hospital

  • Jianyu Dong
  • Amy Ly
  • Ronald Arpin
  • Quratulain Ahmed
  • Elena Brachtel
Preclinical study

Abstract

Fine needle aspiration (FNA) is increasingly being supplanted by core needle biopsy. However, breast surgeons continue to rely on FNA at our institution. This retrospective study evaluated breast FNA for its diagnostic accuracy and breast cancer biomarker testing utility. All breast FNAs performed at Massachusetts General Hospital 2009–2015 were reviewed. Cytology diagnoses were compared with subsequent tissue or clinical diagnoses. Immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) results using formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) cell blocks and histologic tissue blocks were compared. 1654 consecutive breast FNAs were included. Breast FNA demonstrated the following diagnostic performance: positive predictive value of malignant cytology diagnosis 100 %, negative predictive value of benign cytology diagnosis 97.5 %, complete sensitivity 91.6 %, and specificity 95.5 %. Concordance rates for estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) immunohistochemistry, and HER2 FISH were 98.2 % (κ = 0.95, p < 0.001), 100.0 % (κ = 1.000, p < 0.001), 83.1 % (κ = 0.69, p < 0.001), and 93.5 % (κ = 0.785, p < 0.001), respectively. Review of consecutive breast FNAs in a large cohort confirmed the excellent accuracy of this biopsy technique for breast lesion diagnosis. FNA FFPE cell blocks collected in the course of routine clinical care are adequate, practical, and reliable for breast cancer biomarker testing.

Keywords

Breast Fine needle aspiration Diagnostic accuracy Cell block Fluorescence in situ hybridization 

Notes

Funding

Departmental support.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

This study complies with current laws of the United States.

Research involved in human and animal participants

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

Supplementary material

10549_2016_3886_MOESM1_ESM.tif (8.7 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (TIFF 8916 kb)
10549_2016_3886_MOESM2_ESM.doc (32 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOC 32 kb)
10549_2016_3886_MOESM3_ESM.doc (38 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOC 37 kb)
10549_2016_3886_MOESM4_ESM.doc (38 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (DOC 38 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Dixon JM, Anderson TJ, Lamb J, Nixon SJ, Forrest AP (1984) Fine needle aspiration cytology, in relationships to clinical examination and mammography in the diagnosis of a solid breast mass. Br J Surg 71(8):593–596CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sneige N (1993) Fine-needle aspiration of the breast: a review of 1,995 cases with emphasis on diagnostic pitfalls. Diagn Cytopathol 9(1):106–112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ariga R, Bloom K, Reddy VB, Kluskens L, Francescatti D, Dowlat K, Siziopikou P, Gattuso P (2002) Fine-needle aspiration of clinically suspicious palpable breast masses with histopathologic correlation. Am J Surg 184(5):410–413CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kurita T, Tsuchiya S, Watarai Y, Yamamoto Y, Harada O, Yanagihara K, Iida S, Yamashita K, Haga SS, Uchida E (2012) Roles of fine-needle aspiration and core needle biopsy in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Breast Cancer 19(1):23–29. doi: 10.1007/s12282-010-0251-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nagar S, Iacco A, Riggs T, Kestenberg W, Keidan R (2012) An analysis of fine needle aspiration versus core needle biopsy in clinically palpable breast lesions: a report on the predictive values and a cost comparison. Am J Surg 204(2):193–198. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2011.10.018 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nassar A (2011) Core needle biopsy versus fine needle aspiration biopsy in breast–a historical perspective and opportunities in the modern era. Diagn Cytopathol 39(5):380–388. doi: 10.1002/dc.21433 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Simsir A, Cangiarella J (2012) Challenging breast lesions: pitfalls and limitations of fine-needle aspiration and the role of core biopsy in specific lesions. Diagn Cytopathol 40(3):262–272. doi: 10.1002/dc.21630 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2016) NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Accessed 10 June 2016Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hermansen C, Skovgaard Poulsen H, Jensen J, Langfeldt B, Steenskov V, Frederiksen P, Jensen OM (1987) Diagnostic reliability of combined physical examination, mammography, and fine-needle puncture (“triple-test”) in breast tumors a prospective study. Cancer 60(8):1866–1871CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vetto J, Pommier R, Schmidt W, Wachtel M, DuBois P, Jones M, Thurmond A (1995) Use of the “triple test” for palpable breast lesions yields high diagnostic accuracy and cost savings. Am J Surg 169(5):519–522. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9610(99)80209-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lau SK, McKee GT, Weir MM, Tambouret RH, Eichhorn JH, Pitman MB (2004) The negative predicative value of breast fine-needle aspiration biopsy: the Massachusetts General Hospital experience. Breast J 10(6):487–491. doi: 10.1111/j.1075-122X.2004.21496.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Abati A, National Cancer Institute Conference (1997) The uniform approach to breast fine-needle aspiration biopsy. Am J Surg 174(4):371–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Singh N, Wells CA (2001) Assessment of accuracy in breast cytology. Cytopathology 12(4):211–218CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yamaguchi R, Tsuchiya S, Koshikawa T, Ishihara A, Masuda S, Maeda I, Takimoto M, Kawamoto M, Satoh H, Narita M, Itoh H, Kitamura T, Tsuda Y, Ogane N, Abe E, Ikeda K, Nakamura T, Kamaguchi H, Tokoro Y (2012) Diagnostic accuracy of fine-needle aspiration cytology of the breast in Japan: report from the working group on the accuracy of breast fine-needle aspiration cytology of the Japanese Society of Clinical Cytology. Oncol Rep 28(5):1606–1612. doi: 10.3892/or.2012.2014 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fung AD, Collins JA, Campassi C, Ioffe OB, Staats PN (2014) Performance characteristics of ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of axillary lymph nodes for metastatic breast cancer employing rapid on-site evaluation of adequacy: analysis of 136 cases and review of the literature. Cancer Cytopathol 122(4):282–291. doi: 10.1002/cncy.21384 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Monaco SE, Wu Y, Teot LA, Cai G (2013) Assessment of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status in the fine needle aspirates of metastatic breast carcinomas. Diagn Cytopathol 41(4):308–315. doi: 10.1002/dc.21841 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kinsella MD, Birdsong GG, Siddiqui MT, Cohen C, Hanley KZ (2013) Immunohistochemical detection of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 in formalin-fixed breast carcinoma cell block preparations: correlation of results to corresponding tissue block (needle core and excision) samples. Diagn Cytopathol 41(3):192–198. doi: 10.1002/dc.21815 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Masood S, Rosa M, Kraemer DF, Smotherman C, Mohammadi A (2015) Comparative cost-effectiveness of fine needle aspiration biopsy versus image-guided biopsy, and open surgical biopsy in the evaluation of breast cancer in the era of Affordable Care Act: a changing landscape. Diagn Cytopathol 43(8):605–612. doi: 10.1002/dc.23270 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ly A, Ono JC, Hughes KS, Pitman MB, Balassanian R (2016) Fine-needle aspiration biopsy of palpable breast masses: patterns of clinical use and patient experience. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 14(5):527–536Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Beatty BG, Bryant R, Wang W, Ashikaga T, Gibson PC, Leiman G, Weaver DL (2004) HER-2/neu detection in fine-needle aspirates of breast cancer: fluorescence in situ hybridization and immunocytochemical analysis. Am J Clin Pathol 122(2):246–255. doi: 10.1309/N82C-TQ1J-0XEV-EFQB CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gong Y, Booser DJ, Sneige N (2005) Comparison of HER-2 status determined by fluorescence in situ hybridization in primary and metastatic breast carcinoma. Cancer 103(9):1763–1769. doi: 10.1002/cncr.20987 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hanley KZ, Birdsong GG, Cohen C, Siddiqui MT (2009) Immunohistochemical detection of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 expression in breast carcinomas: comparison on cell block, needle-core, and tissue block preparations. Cancer 117(4):279–288. doi: 10.1002/cncy.20034 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shabaik A, Lin G, Peterson M, Hasteh F, Tipps A, Datnow B, Weidner N (2011) Reliability of Her2/neu, estrogen receptor, and progesterone receptor testing by immunohistochemistry on cell block of FNA and serous effusions from patients with primary and metastatic breast carcinoma. Diagn Cytopathol 39(5):328–332. doi: 10.1002/dc.21389 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bueno Angela SP, Viero RM, Soares CT (2013) Fine needle aspirate cell blocks are reliable for detection of hormone receptors and HER-2 by immunohistochemistry in breast carcinoma. Cytopathology 24(1):26–32. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2303.2011.00934.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Acs B, Szekely N, Szasz AM, Lotz G, Szekely T, Istok R, Szekely E, Madaras L, Kulka J, Jaray B (2016) Reliability of immunocytochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization on fine-needle aspiration cytology samples of breast cancers: a comparative study. Diagn Cytopathol. doi: 10.1002/dc.23463 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lakhani SR, Ellis IO, Schnitt SJ, Tan PH, van de Vijver MJ (2012) WHO classification of tumours of the breast. World Health Organization classification of tumours, 4th edn. International Agency for Research on Cancer, LyonGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, Allred DC, Hagerty KL, Badve S, Fitzgibbons PL, Francis G, Goldstein NS, Hayes M, Hicks DG, Lester S, Love R, Mangu PB, McShane L, Miller K, Osborne CK, Paik S, Perlmutter J, Rhodes A, Sasano H, Schwartz JN, Sweep FC, Taube S, Torlakovic EE, Valenstein P, Viale G, Visscher D, Wheeler T, Williams RB, Wittliff JL, Wolff AC (2010) American Society of Clinical Oncology/College Of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 28(16):2784–2795. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.25.6529 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Hicks DG, Dowsett M, McShane LM, Allison KH, Allred DC, Bartlett JM, Bilous M, Fitzgibbons P, Hanna W, Jenkins RB, Mangu PB, Paik S, Perez EA, Press MF, Spears PA, Vance GH, Viale G, Hayes DF, American Society of Clinical O, College of American P (2013) Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol 31(31):3997–4013. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.50.9984 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shin SJ, Chen B, Hyjek E, Vazquez M (2007) Immunocytochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization in HER-2/neu status in cell block preparations. Acta Cytol 51(4):552–557CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stalhammar G, Rosin G, Fredriksson I, Bergh J, Hartman J (2014) Low concordance of biomarkers in histopathological and cytological material from breast cancer. Histopathology 64(7):971–980. doi: 10.1111/his.12344 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sauer T, Ebeltoft K, Pedersen MK, Karesen R (2010) Liquid based material from fine needle aspirates from breast carcinomas offers the possibility of long-time storage without significant loss of immunoreactivity of estrogen and progesterone receptors. Cytojournal 7:24. doi: 10.4103/1742-6413.75665 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Williams SL, Birdsong GG, Cohen C, Siddiqui MT (2009) Immunohistochemical detection of estrogen and progesterone receptor and HER2 expression in breast carcinomas: comparison of cell block and tissue block preparations. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 2(5):476–480PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Domanski AM, Monsef N, Domanski HA, Grabau D, Ferno M (2013) Comparison of the oestrogen and progesterone receptor status in primary breast carcinomas as evaluated by immunohistochemistry and immunocytochemistry: a consecutive series of 267 patients. Cytopathology 24(1):21–25. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2303.2012.00997.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Aurilio G, Disalvatore D, Pruneri G, Bagnardi V, Viale G, Curigliano G, Adamoli L, Munzone E, Sciandivasci A, De Vita F, Goldhirsch A, Nole F (2014) A meta-analysis of oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 discordance between primary breast cancer and metastases. Eur J Cancer 50(2):277–289. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2013.10.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Aker F, Gumrukcu G, Onomay BC, Erkan M, Gurleyik G, Kilicoglu G, Karagullu H (2015) Accuracy of fine-needle aspiration cytology in the diagnosis of breast cancer a single-center retrospective study from Turkey with cytohistological correlation in 733 cases. Diagn Cytopathol 43(12):978–986. doi: 10.1002/dc.23380 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dueber J, Pang JC, Lew M, Jing X, Heider A, Davenport R, Bernacki KD, Kantola S, Roh MH (2015) Value of ultrasound guidance in cytopathologist-performed fine-needle aspirations of palpable lesions. J Am Soc Cytopathol 5(4):195–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Boerner S, Sneige N (1998) Specimen adequacy and false-negative diagnosis rate in fine-needle aspirates of palpable breast masses. Cancer 84(6):344–348CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ljung BM, Drejet A, Chiampi N, Jeffrey J, Goodson WH 3rd, Chew K, Moore DH 2nd, Miller TR (2001) Diagnostic accuracy of fine-needle aspiration biopsy is determined by physician training in sampling technique. Cancer 93(4):263–268CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Vetto JT, Pommier RF, Shih RL, Campagna J, Robbins D, Schmidt WA (2005) Breast fine-needle aspirates with scant cellularity are clinically useful. Am J Surg 189 (5):621–625; discussion 625–626. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.01.040
  40. 40.
    Abdel-Hadi M, Abdel-Hamid GF, Abdel-Razek N, Fawzy RK (2010) Should fine-needle aspiration cytology be the first choice diagnostic modality for assessment of all nonpalpable breast lesions? The experience of a breast cancer screening center in Alexandria. Egypt. Diagn Cytopathol 38(12):880–889. doi: 10.1002/dc.21305 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Daramola AO, Odubanjo MO, Obiajulu FJ, Ikeri NZ, Banjo AA (2015) Correlation between fine-needle aspiration cytology and histology for palpable breast masses in a Nigerian Tertiary Health Institution. Int J Breast Cancer 2015:742573. doi: 10.1155/2015/742573 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jianyu Dong
    • 1
    • 2
  • Amy Ly
    • 1
  • Ronald Arpin
    • 1
  • Quratulain Ahmed
    • 3
  • Elena Brachtel
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pathology, Division of CytologyMassachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.Breast CenterNanfang Hospital, Southern Medical UniversityGuangzhouChina
  3. 3.St. John Providence Health SystemSouthfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations