Skip to main content

Enhancing the Critical Role of Core Needle Biopsy in Breast Cancer

Abstract

The aim of this literature review is to derive detailed information on the significance of core needle biopsy in the diagnosis and effective treatment of breast cancer, according to current evidence, in an era of targeted therapy dependent on breast cancer stage and subtype. Preoperative diagnosis by core biopsy is rendered obligatory due to its crucial role not only in precise surgical management but also in segregating patients that often present with complete pathologic response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Even in the absence of pCR, proper therapeutic management of these patients show significantly better prognosis in progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Abbreviations

NACT:

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

pCR:

Complete pathologic response

PFS:

Progression free survival

OS:

Overall survival

CNB:

Core needle biopsy

US-CNB:

Ultrasound guided core needle biopsy

VAB:

Vacuum assisted biopsy

FNA:

Fine needle aspiration

DCIS:

Ductal carcinoma in situ

ADH:

Atypical ductal hyperplasia

FEA:

Flat epithelial atypia

TDLU:

Terminal ductal lobular unit

LN:

Lobular neoplasia

ALH:

Atypical lobular neoplasia

LCIS:

Lobular carcinoma in situ

PL:

Papillary lesions

PT:

Phylodes tumor

RS:

Radial scar

CSL:

Complex sclerosing lesion

ER:

Estrogen receptor

PgG:

Progesterone receptor

HER2:

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2

RECIST:

Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors

ALND:

Axillary Lymph Node Dissection

SLNB:

Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy

NCCN:

National Comprehensive Cancer Network

AGO:

Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynakologische Onkologie

MIBB:

Minimally Invasive breast biopsies Swiss Society of Senology

WHO:

World Health Organization

ASCO:

American Society of Clinical Oncology

ESMO:

European Society of Medical Oncology

References

  1. 1.

    Del Turco MR, Ponti A, Bick U, et al. Quality indicators in breast cancer care. Eur J Cancer 2010;46:2344–56.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Rutgers EJ. Quality control in the locoregional treatment of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 2001;37:447–53.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    American Society of Breast Surgeons. Preoperative diagnosis of breast cancer quality measure [Internet] [Accessed 2017 July 8]. Availiable from: https://www.breastsurgeons.org/statements/QM/ASBrS_Preoperative_diagnosis_of_breast_cancer.pdf

  4. 4.

    Giard RW, Hermans J. The value of aspiration cytologic examination of the breast. A statistical review of the medical literature. Cancer 1992;69:2104–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Borrelli C, Cohen S, Duncan A, et al. Clinical guidelines for breast screening assessment [internet]. 4rd ed. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes. [Accessed 2016 Nov]. Available from: https://associationofbreastsurgery.org.uk/media/1414/nhs-bsp-clinical-guidance-for-breast-cancer-screening-assessment.pdf

  6. 6.

    Ciatto S, Brancato B, Risso G, et al. Accuracy of fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) of axillary lymph nodes as a triage test in breast cancer staging. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2007;103:85–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Roberts JG, Preece PE, Bolton PM, et al. The ‘tru-cut’ biopsy in breast cancer. Clin Oncol 1975;1:297–303.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Apesteguía L, Pina LJ. Ultrasound-guided core-needle biopsy of breast lesions Insights Imaging. 2011;2:493–500.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Philpotts LE, Hooley RJ, Lee CH. Comparison of automated versus vacuum- assisted biopsy methods for sonographically guided core biopsy of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:347–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis. [Internet]. [Version 1. 2019 May 17]. Available from: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast-screening.pdf

  11. 11.

    Law MT, Bennett IC. Structured ultrasonography workshop for breast surgeons: is it an effective training tool? World J Surg 2010;34:549–54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Layeequr Rahman R, Crawford S, Hall T, et al. Surgical-office-based versus radiology-referral-based breast ultrasonography: a comparison of efficiency, cost, and patient satisfaction. J Am Coll Surg 2008;207:763–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    The Royal College of Pathologists. Guidelines for non-operative diagnostic procedures and reporting in breast cancer screening. NHSBSP Publication 2016 June.

  14. 14.

    Bianchi S, Caini S, Rene G, et al. Positive predictive value for malignancy on surgical excision of breast lesions of uncertain malignant potential (B3) diagnosed by stereotactic vacuum-assisted needle core biopsy: A large multi-institutional study in Italy. Breast 20:264–70.

  15. 15.

    Hartmann LC, Degnim AC, Santen RJ, et al. Atypical hyperplasia of the breast-risk assessment and management options. N Engl J Med 2015;372:78–89.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Rakha EA, Lee AHS, Jenkins J, et al. Characterization and outcome of breast needle core biopsy diagnoses of lesions of uncertain malignant potential (B3) in abnormalities detected by mammographic screening. Int J Cancer 2011;129: 1417–24.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Polom K, Murawa D, Kurzawa P, Michalak M, Murawa P. Underestimation of cancer in case of diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) by vacuum assisted core needle biopsy. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2012;17:129–33.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    McGhan LJ, Pockaj BA, Wasif N, et al. A typical ductal hyperplasia on core biopsy: an automatic trigger for excisional biopsy? Ann Surg Oncol 2012;19:3264–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Gumus H, Mills P, Gumus M, et al. Factors that impact the upgrading of atypical ductal hyperplasia. Diagn Interv Radiol 2013;19:91–96.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Christoph J. Rageth, Elizabeth AM, et al. First International Consensus Conference on lesions of uncertain malignant potential in the breast (B3 lesions) Breast Cancer Res Treat 2016;159:203–13.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Liedtke C, Jackish C, Thill M. AGO Recommendations for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients with Early Breast Cancer: Update 2018 Breast Care 2018;13:196–208.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Moskovszky L, Berger B, Fleischmann A, et al. Inter-observer reproducibility of classical lobular neoplasia (B3 lesions) in preoperative breast biopsies: A study of the Swiss Working Group of breast and gynecopathologists. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2020;146:1473–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Rageth JC, O’Flynn E, Pinker K, et al. Second international conference on lesions of uncertain malignant potential in the breast(B3) In: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. 2019;174:279–96.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Lakhani SREI, Schnitt SJ, Tan PH, et al. WHO classification of tumors of the breast, fourth edition 2012. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®). Breast Cancer. Risk Reduction. [Internet] [Version 1. 2019–2018 December 11]. Available from: https://www2.tri-kobe.org/nccn/guideline/breast/english/breast_risk.pdf

  26. 26.

    Chang JM, Moon WK, Cho N, et al. Management of ultrasonographically detected benign papillomas of the breast at core needle biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;196:723–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Kim MJ, Kim SI, Youk JH, et al. The diagnosis of non-malignant papillary lesions of the breast: comparison of ultrasound-guided automated gun biopsy and vacuum-assisted removal. Clin Radiol 2011;66:530–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Mitus JW, Blecharz P, Jakubowicz J, et al. Phyllodes tumors of the breast. The treatment results for 340 patients from a single cancer centre. Breast 2019;43:85–90.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Youn I, Choi SH, Moon HJ, et al. Phyllodes tumors of the breast: ultrasonographic findings and diagnostic performance of ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy. Ultrasound Med Biol 2013;39:987–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Youk JH, Kim H, Kim EK, et al. Phyllodes tumor diagnosed after ultrasound-guided vacuum-assisted excision: Should it be followed by surgical excision? Ultrasound Med Biol 2015;41:741–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Berg JC, Visscher DW, Vierkant RA, et al. Breast cancer risk in women with radial scars in benign breast biopsies. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2008;108:167–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Brennan ME, Turner RM, Ciatto S, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ at core-needle biopsy: meta-analysis of underestimation and predictors of invasive breast cancer. Radiology 2011;260:119–28.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Ciatto S, Houssami N, Ambrogetti D, et al. Accuracy and underestimation of malignancy of breast core needle biopsy: The Florence experience of over 4000 consecutive biopsies. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2007;101:291–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Villa A, Tagliafico A, Chiesa F, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy performed on suspicious clustered microcalcifications: could patients without residual microcalcifications be managed conservatively? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;197:1012–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Jackman RJ, Marzoni FA, Rosenburg J. False negative diagnoses at stereotactic vacuum assisted needle breast biopsy: Long-term follow-up of 1280 lesions and review of the literature. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;192:341–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Yu Y-H, Liang C, Yuan X-Z. Diagnostic value of vacuum-assisted breast biopsy for breast carcinoma: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010;120:469–79.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Rajan S, Shaaban AM, Dall BJG, et al. New patient pathway using vacuum-assisted biopsy reduces diagnostic surgery for B3 lesions. Clin Radiol 2012;67:244–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Parikh J, Tickman R. Image-guided tissue sampling: Where radiology meets pathology. Breast J 2005;11:403–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Wolff AC, Elizabeth Hale Hammond M. HER2 Testing in Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Clinical Practice Guideline Focused Update Summary. J Oncol Pract 2018;14:437–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Aravind Barathi Asogan, Ga Sze Hong, et al. Concordance between core needle biopsy and surgical specimen for oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status in breast cancer. Singapore Med J 2017;58:145–9.

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New Response evaluation criteria in solid tumors: revised RECIST guidelines (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009;45:228–47.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: The CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet 2014;384:164–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Gianni L, Pienkowski T. 5-year analysis of neoadjuvant pertuzumab and trastuzumab in patients with locally advanced, inflammatory, or early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer (NeoSphere): A multicentre, open-label, phase 2 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 2016;17:791–800.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Symmans WF, Wei C, Gould R, et al. Long-Term prognostic risk after neoadjuvant chemotherapy associated with residual cancer burden and breast cancer subtype. J Clin Oncol 2017;35:1049–60.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Cardoso F, Kyriakides S, Ohno S, et al. Early breast cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2019;30:1194–220.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Schneeweiss A, Chia S, Hickish T. Long term efficacy analysis of the randomized, phase II TRYPHAENA cardiac safety study: Evaluating pertuzumab and trastuzumab plus standard neoadjuvant anthracycline-containing and anthracycline free chemotherapy regimens in patients with HER2 positive early breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 2018;89:27–35.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Minckwitz G, Huang C-S, Mano MS, et al. Trastuzumab Emtansine for Residual Invasive HER2-Positive Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med 2019;380:617–28.

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Moorman AM, Bourez RL, de Leeuw DM. Preoperative ultrasonografic evaluation of axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer patients: For which group still of additional value and in which group cause for special attention? Ultrasound Med Biol 2015;41:2842–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Specht MC, Fey JV, Borgen PI, et al. Is the clinically positive axilla in breast cancer really a contraindication to sentinel lymph node biopsy? J Am Coll Surg 2005;200:10–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Boughey JC, Suman VJ. Sentinel lymph node surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with node-positive breast cancer: The ACOSOG Z1071 (Aliance) clinical trial. JAMA 2013;310:1455–61.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Boughey JC, Suman VJ. Factors affecting sentinel lymph node identification rate after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer patients enrolled in ACOSOG Z1071 (Aliance) Ann Surg 2015;261:547–52.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Kuehn T, Bauerfeind I, Fehm T. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with breast cancer before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (SENTINA): A prospective, multicenter cohort study. Lancet Oncol 2013;14:609–18.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Farell TP, Adams NC, Stenson M. The Z0011 trial: Is this the end of axillary ultrasound in the preoperative assessment of breast cancer patients? Eur Radiol 2015;25:2682–7.

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Galimberti V, Ribeiro Fontana SK, Maisonnneuve P, et al. Sentinel node biopsy after neoadjuvant treatment in breast cancer: Five-year follow up of patients with clinically-node negative or node-positive disease before treatment. Eur J Surg Oncol 2016;42:361–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Zetterlund L, Celebioglu F, Axelsson R. Swedish prospective multicenter trial on the accuracy and clinical relevance of sentinel lymph node biopsy before neoadjuvant systemic therapy in breast cancer. Breast Ca Res and Treat 2017;163:93–101.

    Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Boughey JC, Ballman KV, Le-Petross HT, et al. Identification and resection of clipped node decreases the false negative rate of sentinel lymph node surgery in patients presenting with node-positive breast cancer (T0-T4, N1-N2) who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy: Results from ACOSOGZ1071 (Alliance). Ann Surg 2016;263:802–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Triantafillidou SE. The Evolution of the Current Indications for Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Breast Cancer. Hellenic J Surg 2018;90:186–94.

    Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    The American Society of Breast Surgeons. Consensus Guideline on Image-Guided Percutaneous Biopsy of Palpable and Nonpalpable Breast Lesions [Internet]. 2016 [cited YEAR MONTH DAY]. Availiable from: https://www.breastsurgeons.org/docs/statements/Consensus-Guideline-on-Image-Guided-Percutaneous-Biopsy-of-Palpable-and-Nonpalpable-Breast-Lesions.pdf

  59. 59.

    Landercasper J, Linebarger JH. Contemporary breast imaging and concordance assessment: A surgical perspective. Surg Clin North Am 2011;91:33–58.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Masood S, Rosa M. Borderline breast lesions: Diagnostic challenges and clinical implications. Adv Anat Pathol 2011;18:190–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Corben AD, Edelweiss M, Brogi E. Challenges in the interpretation of breast core biopsies. Breast J 2010;16 Suppl 1: S5–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E Sofia Triantafillidou.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Triantafillidou, E.S. Enhancing the Critical Role of Core Needle Biopsy in Breast Cancer. Hellenic J Surg 92, 76–84 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13126-020-0550-y

Download citation

Key words

  • Core needle biopsy
  • breast cancer