Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Multidisciplinary Approach to Managing Uncertainty

  • Best Practice Approaches Breast Radiology-Pathology Correlation and Management (J Scheel and MR Kilgore, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Breast Cancer Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Image-guided percutaneous breast biopsy of both palpable and non-palpable findings has become standard of care. These minimally invasive breast procedures can avoid a surgical procedure for patients who have benign findings and can also guide pre-surgical management for malignant pathology. Establishing radiology-pathologic concordance is critical to guide appropriate management and is often performed between the radiologist and pathologist. However, the role of a multidisciplinary team and understanding the overall clinical context can better guide clinical care, particularly when imaging and pathologic findings may be uncertain.

Recent Findings

This article presents a series of difficult cases where multidisciplinary input is needed to help guide subspecialty decision-making.

Summary

A multidisciplinary team that has an understanding of what information is needed to guide subspecialty decision making and recommendations can improve patient management, particularly in uncertain radiology-pathology situations.

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
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

  1. Prakash S, Venkataraman S, Slanetz PJ, Dialani V, Fein-Zachary V, Littlehale N, et al. Improving patient care by incorporation of multidisciplinary breast radiology-pathology correlation conference. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2016;67(2):122–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. •• D’Orsi CJ SE, Mendelson EB, Morris EA et al. ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. 5th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology. 2013. This manual provides standardized breast imaging terminology and guidance for all imaging modalities and follow-up and outcomes monitoring. Although not recently published, it is the source for breast imaging reporting guidelines.

  3. Rakha EA, Ellis IO. Diagnostic challenges in papillary lesions of the breast. Pathology. 2018;50(1):100–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wen X, Cheng W. Nonmalignant breast papillary lesions at core-needle biopsy: a meta-analysis of underestimation and influencing factors. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(1):94–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Jung SY, Kang HS, Kwon Y, Min SY, Kim EA, Ko KL, et al. Risk factors for malignancy in benign papillomas of the breast on core needle biopsy. World J Surg. 2010;34(2):261–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Nakhlis F, Ahmadiyeh N, Lester S, Raza S, Lotfi P, Golshan M. Papilloma on core biopsy: excision vs. observation. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(5):1479–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rizzo M, Linebarger J, Lowe MC, Pan L, Gabram SG, Vasquez L, et al. Management of papillary breast lesions diagnosed on core-needle biopsy: clinical pathologic and radiologic analysis of 276 cases with surgical follow-up. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;214(3):280–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Armes JE, Galbraith C, Gray J, Taylor K. The outcome of papillary lesions of the breast diagnosed by standard core needle biopsy within a Breast Screen Australia service. Pathology. 2017;49(3):267–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Shoker BS, Jarvis C, Sibson DR, Walker C, Sloane JP. Oestrogen receptor expression in the normal and pre-cancerous breast. J Pathol. 1999;188(3):237–44.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Costarelli L, Campagna D, Mauri M, Fortunato L. Intraductal proliferative lesions of the breast-terminology and biology matter: premalignant lesions or preinvasive cancer? Int J Surg Oncol. 2012;2012:501904.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Asirvatham JR, Falcone MM, Kleer CG. Atypical apocrine adenosis: diagnostic challenges and pitfalls. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2016;140(10):1045–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Calhoun BC, Booth CN. Atypical apocrine adenosis diagnosed on breast core biopsy: implications for management. Hum Pathol. 2014;45(10):2130–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Carter DJ, Rosen PP. Atypical apocrine metaplasia in sclerosing lesions of the breast: a study of 51 patients. Mod Pathol. 1991;4(1):1–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Fuehrer N, Hartmann L, Degnim A, Allers T, Vierkant R, Frost M, et al. Atypical apocrine adenosis of the breast: long-term follow-up in 37 patients. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012;136(2):179–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Seidman JD, Ashton M, Lefkowitz M. Atypical apocrine adenosis of the breast: a clinicopathologic study of 37 patients with 8.7-year follow-up. Cancer. 1996;77(12):2529–37.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Jackman RJ, Marzoni FA, 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 

  17. Liberman L, Benton CL, Dershaw DD, Abramson AF, LaTrenta LR, Morris EA. Learning curve for stereotactic breast biopsy: how many cases are enough? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176(3):721–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Boba M, Kołtun U, Bobek-Billewicz B, Chmielik E, Eksner B, Olejnik T. False-negative results of breast core needle biopsies - retrospective analysis of 988 biopsies. Pol J Radiol. 2011;76(1):25–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Lee CH, Philpotts LE, Horvath LJ, Tocino I. Follow-up of breast lesions diagnosed as benign with stereotactic core-needle biopsy: frequency of mammographic change and false-negative rate. Radiology. 1999;212(1):189–94.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Heller SL, Jaglan S, Babb JS, Melsaether A, Toth HB, Moy L. Frequency of discordant lesions and false-negative cancers at stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy. Acad Radiol. 2016;23(8):994–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Morgan C, Shah ZA, Hamilton R, Wang J, Spigel J, Deleon W, et al. The radial scar of the breast diagnosed at core needle biopsy. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2012;25(1):3–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cohen MA, Newell MS. Radial scars of the breast encountered at core biopsy: review of histologic, imaging, and management considerations. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;209(5):1168–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hilson JB, Schnitt SJ, Collins LC. Phenotypic alterations in myoepithelial cells associated with benign sclerosing lesions of the breast. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010;34(6):896–900.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Conlon N, D’Arcy C, Kaplan JB, Bowser ZL, Cordero A, Brogi E, et al. Radial scar at image-guided needle biopsy: is excision necessary? Am J Surg Pathol. 2015;39(6):779–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Coopey SB, Mazzola E, Buckley JM, Sharko J, Belli AK, Kim EM, et al. The role of chemoprevention in modifying the risk of breast cancer in women with atypical breast lesions. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;136(3):627–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. 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  Google Scholar 

  27. Hartmann LC, Degnim AC, Santen RJ, Dupont WD, Ghosh K. Atypical hyperplasia of the breast — risk assessment and management options. N Engl J Med. 2014;372(1):78–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Choi AH, Blount S, Perez MN, de Paz Chavez CE, Rodriguez SA, Surrusco M, et al. Size of extranodal extension on sentinel lymph node dissection in the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 Trial Era. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(12):1141–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. •• Giuliano AE, Ballman KV, McCall L, Beitsch PD, Brennan MB, Kelemen PR, et al. Effect of axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection on 10-year overall survival among women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: the ACOSOG Z0011 (Alliance) randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;318(10):918–26. This paper described long-term outcome follow-up of women enrolled in the ACOSOG Z0011 trial which showed similar survival outcomes in women with T1 or T2 invasive primary cancer with non-palpable axillary lymphadanotphy treated with sentinal lymph node dissection alone versus axillary lymph node dissection.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gooch J, King TA, Eaton A, Dengel L, Stempel M, Corben AD, et al. The extent of extracapsular extension may influence the need for axillary lymph node dissection in patients with T1–T2 breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(9):2897–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Katz A, Strom EA, Buchholz TA, Thames HD, Smith CD, Jhingran A, et al. Locoregional recurrence patterns after mastectomy and doxorubicin-based chemotherapy: implications for postoperative irradiation. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(15):2817–27.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Geng W, Zhang B, Li D, Liang X, Cao X. The effects of ECE on the benefits of PMRT for breast cancer patients with positive axillary nodes. J Radiat Res. 2013;54(4):712–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Donker M, van Tienhoven G, Straver ME, Meijnen P, van de Velde CJ, Mansel RE, et al. Radiotherapy or surgery of the axilla after a positive sentinel node in breast cancer (EORTC 10981–22023 AMAROS): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(12):1303–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Giuliano AE, Hunt KK, Ballman KV, Beitsch PD, Whitworth PW, Blumencranz PW, et al. Axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2011;305(6):569–75.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Cardoso F, van’t Veer LJ, Bogaerts J, Slaets L, Viale G, Delaloge S, et al. 70-gene signature as an aid to treatment decisions in early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(8):717–29.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. National Cancer Institute. Tamoxifen citrate, letrozole, anastrozole, or exemestane with or without chemotherapy in treating patients with invasive RxPONDER breast cancer. Available from: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01272037. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01272037. Accessed January 14, 2021.

  37. NSABP Foundation Inc. Standard or comprehensive radiation therapy in treating patients with early-stage breast cancer previously treated with chemotherapy and surgery. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01872975. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01872975. Accessed January 18, 2021.

  38. von Minckwitz G, Huang CS, Mano MS, Loibl S, Mamounas EP, Untch M, et al. Trastuzumab emtansine for residual invasive HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(7):617–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Symmans WF, Wei C, Gould R, Yu X, Zhang Y, Liu M, et al. Long-term prognostic risk after neoadjuvant chemotherapy associated with residual cancer burden and breast cancer subtype. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(10):1049–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, University of Washington School of Medicine, 1144 Eastlake Avenue East, LG2-216, Seattle, WA, 98109, USA

    Diana L. Lam

  2. Department of Pathology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA

    Elizabeth U. Parker

  3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA

    Janice N. Kim

  4. Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA

    Rachel L. Yung

  5. Department of Surgery, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA

    Meghan R. Flanagan

Authors
  1. Diana L. Lam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elizabeth U. Parker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Janice N. Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rachel L. Yung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Meghan R. Flanagan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diana L. Lam.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Best Practice Approaches Breast Radiology-Pathology Correlation and Management

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lam, D.L., Parker, E.U., Kim, J.N. et al. A Multidisciplinary Approach to Managing Uncertainty. Curr Breast Cancer Rep 13, 365–380 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-021-00437-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-021-00437-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation