Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM) pp 169–184Cite as

High-Risk (B3) Lesions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 412 Accesses

Abstract

Breast lesions classified as lesions of uncertain malignant potential (B3) represent a wide range of non-malignant breast pathologies with a borderline histological spectrum and a variable risk of associated malignancy, which may predispose a patient to an increased risk of developing breast cancer in the future. The post-biopsy management of these lesions has changed in recent years from the previously recommended surgical excision of all lesions to a more conservative approach with vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) and imaging follow-up. Therefore, it is very important to find imaging modalities that identify the B3 lesions associated with malignancy thus being able to distinguish patients who need surgery from those for whom imaging follow-up is sufficient. Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been evaluated in some studies for this purpose, but to date, no specific imaging features that predict the upgrade of high-risk lesions have been definitively identified. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) demonstrates sensitivity similar to that of MRI with increased specificity for the detection of breast cancer. The increased specificity of CEDM may help predict the malignant potential of breast lesions classified as B3. In this chapter, we review all B3 lesions and describe how they appear by CEDM based on the data available in previous literature and on our own experience. We conclude this chapter by describing our evaluation of the diagnostic performance of CEDM in predicting the malignant potential of B3 lesions.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Rageth CJ, O’Flynn EA, Comstock C, et al. First International Consensus Conference on lesions of uncertain malignant potential in the breast (B3 lesions). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;159(2):203–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Pediconi F, Padula S, Dominelli V, et al. Role of breast MR imaging for predicting malignancy of histologically borderline lesions diagnosed at core needle biopsy: prospective evaluation. Radiology. 2010;257(3):653–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fallenberg EM, Schmitzberger FF, Amer H, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography vs. mammography and MRI – clinical performance in a multi-reader evaluation. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(7):2752–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW, Rados MS. Atypical hyperplastic lesions of the female breast. A long-term follow-up study. Cancer. 1985;55(11):2698–708.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tavassoli FA, Norris HJ. A comparison of the results of long-term follow-up for atypical intraductal hyperplasia and intraductal hyperplasia of the breast. Cancer. 1990;65:518–29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. AGO. Guidelines of the AGO Breast committee: lesions of uncertain malignant potential (B3) (ADH, LIN, FEA, Papilloma, Radial Scar).

    Google Scholar 

  7. 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. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;172:1405–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bedei L, Falcini F, Sanna PA, Casadei Giunchi D, Innocenti MP, Vignutelli P, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia of the breast: the controversial management of a borderline lesion: experience of 47 cases diagnosed at vacuum-assisted biopsy. Breast. 2006;15:196–202.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gumus H, Mills P, Gumus M, Fish D, Jones S, Jones P, et al. Factors that impact the upgrading of atypical ductal hyperplasia 2013. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2013;19:91–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hartmann LC, Radisky DC, Frost MH, Santen RJ, Vierkant RA, et al. Understanding the premalignant potential of atypical hyperplasia through its natural history: a longitudinal cohort study. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2014;7(2):211–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Myers DJ, Bhimji SS. Breast, atypical hyperplasia. StatPearls. Treasure Island: StatPearls Publishing; 2017. p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bianchi S, Bendinelli B, Saladino V, Vezzosi V, Brancato B, Nori J, et al. 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;21:535–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Liberman L, Bracero N, Vuolo MA, Dershaw DD, Morris EA, Abramson AF, et al. Percutaneous large-core biopsy of papillary breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;172:331–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mercado CL, Hamele-Bena D, Singer C, Koenigsberg T, Pile- Spellman E, Higgins H, et al. Papillary lesions of the breast: evaluation with stereotactic directional vacuum-assisted biopsy. Radiology. 2001;221:650–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Reynolds HE. Core needle biopsy of challenging benign breast conditions: a comprehensive literature review. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174:1245–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Yamaguchi R, Tanaka M, Tse GM, Yamaguchi M, Terasaki H, Hirai Y, et al. Management of breast papillary lesions diagnosed in ultrasound-guided vacuum-assisted and core needle biopsies. Histopathology. 2015;66:565–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Youk JH, Kim MJ, Son EJ, Kwak JY, Kim EK. US-guided vacuum-assisted percutaneous excision for management of benign papilloma without atypia diagnosed at US-guided 14-gauge core needle biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:922–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Chang JM, Han W, Moon WK, Cho N, Noh DY, Park IA, et al. Papillary lesions initially diagnosed at ultrasound-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: rate of malignancy based on subsequent surgical excision. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:2506–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Danforth DN. Molecular profile of atypical hyperplasia of the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;167(1):9–29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Tavassoli FA, Millis RR, Boecker W, Lakhani SR. Lobular neoplasia. In: Lakhani SR, Ellis IO, Tan PH, Van de Vijver MJ, editors. WHO classification of tumours of the breast. 4th ed. Lyon: IARC; 2012. p. 60–2.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Saladin C, Haueisen H, Kampmann G, Oehlschlegel C, Seifert B, et al. Lesions with unclear malignant potential (B3) after minimally invasive breast biopsy: evaluation of vacuum biopsies performed in Switzerland and recommended further management. Acta Radiol. 2016;57(7):815–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Portschy PR, Marmor S, Nzara R, Virnig BA, Tuttle TM. Trends in incidence and management of lobular carcinoma in situ: a population-based analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:3240–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Maxwell AJ, Clements K, Dodwell DJ, Evans AJ, Francis A, et al. The radiological features, diagnosis and management of screen-detected lobular neoplasia of the breast: findings from the Sloane Project. Breast. 2016;27:109–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Heywang-Köbrunner SH, Nährig J, Hacker A, Sedlacek S, Höfler H. B3 lesions: radiological assessment and multi-disciplinary aspects. Breast Care (Basel). 2010;5(4):209–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Bodian CA, Perzin KH, Lattes R. Lobular neoplasia. long term risk of breast cancer and relation to other factors. Cancer. 1996;78:1024–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. D’Alfonso TM, Wang K, Chiu YL, Shin SJ. Pathologic upgrade rates on subsequent excision when lobular carcinoma in situ is the primary diagnosis in the needle core biopsy with special attention to the radiographic target. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013;137:927–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 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;29:534–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kennedy M, Masterson AV, Kerin M, Flanagan F. Pathology and clinical relevance of radial scars: a review. J Clin Pathol. 2003;56(10):721–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Douglas-Jones AG, Denson JL, Cox AC, Harries IB, Stevens G. Radial scar lesions of the breast diagnosed by needle core biopsy: analysis of cases containing occult malignancy. J Clin Pathol. 2007;60(3):295–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kalife ET, Lourenco AP, Baird GL, Wang Y. Clinical and radiologic follow-up study for biopsy diagnosis of radial scar/radial sclerosing lesion without other atypia. Breast J. 2016;22:637–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hou Y, Hooda S, Li Z. Surgical excision outcome after radial scar without atypical proliferative lesion on breast core needle biopsy: a single institutional analysis. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2016;21:35–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Linda A, Zuiani C, Furlan A, Londero V, Girometti R, Machin P, et al. Radial scars without atypia diagnosed at imaging- guided needle biopsy: how often is associated malignancy found at subsequent surgical excision, and do mammography and sonography predict which lesions are malignant? Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:1146–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Jacobs TW, Byrne C, Colditz G, Connolly JL, Schnitt SJ. Radial scars in benign breast-biopsy specimens and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:430–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Miller CL, West JA, Bettini AC, et al. Surgical excision of radial scars diagnosed by core biopsy may help predict future risk of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;145:331–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Solorzano S, Mesurolle B, Omeroglu A, et al. Flat epithelial atypia of the breast: pathological-radiological correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197:740–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Senetta R, Campanino PP, Mariscotti G, Garberoglio S, Daniele L, Pennecchi F, et al. Columnar cell lesions associated with breast calcifications on vacuum-assisted core biopsies: clinical, radiographic, and histological correlations. Mod Pathol. 2009;22:762–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Lamb LR, Bahl M, Gadd MA, Lehman CD. Flat epithelial atypia: upgrade rates and risk-stratification approach to support informed decision making. J Am Coll Surg. 2017;225(6):696–701.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Piubello Q, Parisi A, Eccher A, Barbazeni G, Franchini Z, Iannucci A. Flat epithelial atypia on core needle biopsy: which is the right management? Am J Surg Pathol. 2009;33:1078–1084 48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Chivukula M, Bhargava R, Tseng G, Dabbs DJ. Clinicopathologic implications of “flat epithelial atypia” in core needle biopsy specimens of the breast. Am J Clin Pathol. 2009;131:802–808 44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Dialani V, Venkataraman S, Frieling G, et al. Does isolated flat epithelial atypia on vacuum-assisted breast core biopsy require surgical excision? Breast J. 2014;20:606–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Linda A, Zuiani C, Bazzocchi M, Furlan A, Londero V. Borderline breast lesions diagnosed at core needle biopsy: can magnetic resonance mammography rule out associated malignancy? Preliminary results based on 79 surgically excised lesions. Breast. 2008;17(2):125–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Sardanelli F, Houssami N. Evaluation of lesions of uncertain malignant potential (B3) at core needle biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging: a new approach warrants prospective studies. Breast. 2008;17(2):117–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Cheeney S, Rahbar H, Dontchos BN, Javid SH, Rendi MH, Partridge SC. Apparent diffusion coefficient values may help predict which MRI-detected high-risk breastlesions will upgrade at surgical excision. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017;46(4):1028–36.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Heller SL, Moy L. Imaging features and management of high-risk lesions on contrast-enhanced dynamic breast MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198(2):249–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Londero V, Zuiani C, Linda A, Girometti R, Bazzocchi M, Sardanelli F. High-risk breast lesions at imaging-guided needle biopsy: usefulness of MRI for treatment decision. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199(2):W240–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Linda A, Zuiani C, Furlan A, Lorenzon M, Londero V, Girometti R, Bazzocchi M. Nonsurgical management of high-risk lesions diagnosed at core needle biopsy: can malignancy be ruled out safely with breast MRI? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198(2):272–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Crystal P, Sadaf A, Bukhanov K, McCready D, O’Malley F, Helbich TH. High-risk lesions diagnosed at MRI-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: can underestimation be predicted? Eur Radiol. 2011;21(3):582–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Strigel RM, Eby PR, Demartini WB, Gutierrez RL, Allison KH, Peacock S, Lehman CD. Frequency, upgrade rates, and characteristics of high-risk lesions initially identified with breastMRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(3):792–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Bieling HB, et al. MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study. Lancet. 2007;370(9586):485–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Sardanelli F, Bacigalupo L, Carbonaro L. What is the sensitivity of mammography and dynamic MR imaging for DCIS if the whole-breast histopathology is used as a reference standard? Radiol Med. 2008;113(3):439–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Sogani J, Morris EA, Kaplan JB, D’Alessio D, Goldman D, Moskowitz CS, Jochelson MS. Comparison of background parenchymal enhancement at contrast-enhanced spectral mammography and breast MR imaging. Radiology. 2017;282(1):63–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Savaridas SL, Taylor DB, Gunawardana D, Phillips M. Could parenchymal enhancement on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) represent a new breast cancer risk factor? Correlation with known radiology risk factors. Clin Radiol. 2017. pii: S0009-9260(17)30403-8.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Patel BK, Gray RJ, Pockaj BA. Potential cost savings of contrast-enhanced digital mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(6):W231–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Diagnostic Senology Unit, Department of Radiology, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy

    Giulia Bicchierai, Jacopo Nori & Francesco Amato

Authors
  1. Giulia Bicchierai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jacopo Nori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francesco Amato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Diagnostic Senology Unit, Department of Radiology, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, Florence, Italy

    Jacopo Nori

  2. Department of Radiology, Kuala Lumpur Hospital, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    Maninderpal Kaur

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bicchierai, G., Nori, J., Amato, F. (2018). High-Risk (B3) Lesions. In: Nori, J., Kaur, M. (eds) Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94553-8_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94553-8_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-94552-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-94553-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation