Flat epithelial atypia and the risk of sampling error: Determining the value of excision after image-guided core-needle biopsy

Are Columnar Cell Lesions the Earliest Non-Obligate Precursor in the Low-Grade Breast Neoplasia Pathway?

Columnar cell lesions (CCLs) of the breast comprise a spectrum of morphologic alterations of the terminal duct lobular unit involving variably dilated and enlarged acini lined by columnar epithelial cells. The World Health Organization currently classifies CCLs without atypia as columnar cell change (CCC) and columnar cell hyperplasia (CCH), whereas flat epithelial atypia (FEA) is a unifying term encompassing both CCC and CCH with cytologic atypia. CCLs have been increasingly recognized in stereotactic core needle biopsies (CNBs) performed for the assessment of calcifications. CCLs are believed to represent the earliest non-obligate precursor of low-grade invasive breast carcinomas as they share molecular alterations and often coexist with entities in the low-grade breast neoplasia pathway. Despite this association, however, the risk of progression of CCLs to invasive breast carcinoma appears low and may not exceed that of concurrent proliferative lesions. As the reported upgrade rates of pure CCL/FEA when identified as the most advanced high-risk lesion on CNB vary widely, the management of FEA diagnosed on CNB remains controversial. This review will include a historical overview of CCLs and will examine histologic diagnostic criteria, molecular alterations, prognosis and issues related to upgrade rates and clinical management.

Upgrade rate of percutaneously diagnosed pure flat epithelial atypia: systematic review and meta-analysis of 1,924 lesions

CONTEXT

Management remains controversial due to the risk of upgrade for malignancy from flat epithelial atypia (FEA). Data about the frequency and malignancy upgrade rates are scant. Namely, observational follow-up is advised by many studies in cases of pure FEA on core biopsy and in the absence of an additional surgical excision. For cases of pure FEA, the American College of Surgeons no longer recommends surgical excision but rather recommends observation with clinical and imaging follow-up.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to calculate the pooled upgrade of pure FEA following core needle biopsies.

METHODS

A search of MEDLINE and Embase databases were conducted in December 2020. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. A fixed- or random-effects model was utilized. Heterogeneity among studies was estimated by utilizing the I2 statistic and considered high if the I2 was greater than 50%. The random-effects model with the DerSimonian and Laird method was utilized to calculate the pooled upgrade rate and its 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

A total of 1924 pure FEA were analyzed among 59 included studies. The overall pooled upgrade rate to malignancy was 8.8%. The pooled upgrade rate for mammography only was 8.9%. The pooled upgrade rate for ultrasound was 14%. The pooled upgrade rate for mammography and ultrasound combined was 8.8%. The pooled upgrade rate for MRI-only cases was 27.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the guidelines for the management of pure FEA are variable, our data support that pure FEA diagnosed at core needle biopsy should undergo surgical excision since the upgrade rate >2%.

Upgrade Rate of Pure Flat Epithelial Atypia Diagnosed at Core Needle Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to calculate the pooled upgrade rate of pure flat epithelial atypia (FEA) diagnosed at core needle biopsy (CNB).

Materials and Methods

A PubMed and Embase database search was performed in December 2019. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Study quality and publication bias were assessed. The upgrade rate of pure FEA to cancer, invasive carcinoma, and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), as well as the co-occurrence rate of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), with 95% CIs were calculated. A random effect model was used to integrate the proportions and their corresponding 95% CI. Study heterogeneity was calculated using τ2 and I 2 .

Results

A total of 2482 cases of pure FEA across 42 studies (mean age range, 46-59 years) met inclusion criteria to be analyzed. Significant study heterogeneity was identified (τ2 = 0.001, I 2 = 67%). The pooled upgrade rates reported for pure FEA were 5% (95% CI: 3%, 6%) for breast cancer, 1% (95% CI: 0%, 2%) for invasive carcinoma, and 2% (95% CI: 1%, 3%) for DCIS. When more than 90% of calcifications were removed at CNB, the pooled upgrade rate was 0% (95% CI: 0%, 2%). The pooled co-occurrence rate of ADH at surgical excision was 17% (95% CI: 12%, 21%). Study quality was medium to high with a risk of publication bias (P < .01).

Conclusion

Pure FEA diagnosed at CNB should be surgically excised due to the pooled upgrade rate of 5% for breast cancer. If more than 90% of the targeted calcifications are removed by CNB for pure FEA, close imaging follow-up is recommended.Keywords: Biopsy/Needle Aspiration, Breast, MammographySupplemental material is available for this article.© RSNA, 2021.

Upgrade Rate of Flat Epithelial Atypia Diagnosed at Stereotactic Core Needle Biopsy of Microcalcifications: Is Excisional Biopsy Indicated?

OBJECTIVE

Whether the optimal management of pure flat epithelial atypia (FEA) found on core needle biopsy (CNB) specimens is surgical excision or imaging follow-up remains controversial. This study aimed to determine the upgrade rate to ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), invasive carcinoma or a high-risk lesion (atypical ductal hyperplasia, atypical lobular hyperplasia, or lobular carcinoma in situ), and it explored the relationship between a family history of breast cancer and the risk of upgrade.

METHODS

Cases with pure FEA found on stereotactic CNB of microcalcifications between March 2011 to December 2017 were followed by excisional biopsy or periodic imaging. The proportion of cases upgraded to a high-risk lesion and the odds of upgrade as related to a family history of breast cancer were determined with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

We identified 622 cases of pure FEA; 101 (16.2%) underwent surgical excision and 269 (43.2%) had imaging follow-up of ≥ 24 months. There were no upgrades to DCIS or invasive cancer in any of these 370 individuals (0%), and 4.6% (17/370; 95% CI: 2.9%-7.2%) were upgraded to a high-risk lesion. There was a nonstatistically significant trend between family history and upgrade to high-risk lesion (odds ratio 1.72 [95% CI: 0.65%-4.57%]).

CONCLUSION

In our study, the upgrade rate of pure FEA to malignancy was 0%. We suggest that regular imaging follow-up is an appropriate alternative to surgery. Because of potential differences in biopsy techniques and pathologist interpretation of the primary biopsy, individual institutions should audit their own results prior to altering their management of FEA.