Gamma Imaging-Guided Minimally Invasive Breast Biopsy: Initial Clinical Experience.

Purpose: we have previously described the "Milky Way Sign", which manifests as microcalcifications overlying noncalcified band-like density, best seen in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), in a patient with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Here, we describe a series of patients with DCIS, IDC, and rarely, Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia (ADH) with this sign. Materials and Methods: we performed a systemic search of all stereotactic core biopsies for suspicious calcifications performed at our institution from April 15, 2014, when we first implemented DBT with synthesized 2D mammogram, to October 2, 2014, and identified all cases that were diagnosed as DCIS, IDC, or high-risk lesions (such as ADH, atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH), and intraductal papilloma) on pathology. From 89 biopsied performed in 87 patients, a total of 13 cases of DCIS, IDC, or IDC with DCIS were identified in 12 patients. 17 cases of high-risk lesions were identified in 16 patients, including 10 ADH in 9 patients, 4 ALH, two intraductal papillomas, and one atypical columnar cell change. Results: Among the 30 cases of suspicious calcifications with a diagnosis of DCIS, IDC, or high-risk lesions, 37% demonstrated the Milky Way Sign (11/30), including 71% of DCIS cases (5/7), 60% of cases of IDC (3/5), 100% of DCIS/IDC (1/1), and 12% of high-risk lesions (2/17). Both high-risk lesions with the Milky Way sign were ADH from the same patient. Among the 11 cases with the Milky Way sign, the breast density at the site of calcifications is either scattered (6/11) or heterogeneously dense (5/11), whereas the density at 1 cm surrounding the calcifications is either fatty (8/11) or scattered (3/11). The breast is less dense surrounding the calcifications in all but one case. The calcifications seen in the Milky Way cases are predominantly fine pleomorphic calcifications except one case of fine linear and linear branching calcifications. The calcifications are grouped (6/11), linear (3/11), or segmental (2/11) in distribution. Five patients also had contrast-enhanced breast MRIs. Among them, three (one each with the diagnosis of DCIS, IDC or DCIS/IDC) had non-mass enhancement on breast MRI that correlated to the Milky Way sign seen on mammogram. The other two patients (one with DCIS and one with IDC) had post biopsy change instead of Non-mass enhancement were seen in the corresponding areas. Conclusion: The Milky Way sign, in the context of DBT, is a novel diagnostic sign for both DCIS and IDC. It may occasionally be seen in ADH cases as well. Features that often associate with the Milky Way sign include less dense tissue surrounding the calcifications, calcifications that are fine pleomorphic in morphology and grouped or linear in distribution. Preliminary results also suggest that the Milky Way sign may correspond to non-mass enhancement seen on contrast-enhanced breast MRI. Clinical Relevance Statement: We hope that the Milky Way sign will facilitate detection of both DCIS and IDC in the context of DBT. Citation Format: Allison K, Xu Y, Liu YI, Miyake KK, Downey JR, Lipson JA, Ikeda DM. A case series of the Milky Way sign: A diagnostic finding of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and invasive breast carcinoma (IDC) on digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-01-01.

The management of atypical intraductal lesions of the breast remains controversial. In the present study, the subsequent surgical excision results and follow-up data on 86 (3.65%) atypical intraductal lesions and 78 (3.31%) low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) from a cohort of 2358 needle biopsies were examined. There were 17 cases (0.72%) of pure flat epithelial atypia (FEA), 44 (1.87%) pure atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), three (0.13%) pure atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH), 18 (0.76%) combined ADH + FEA, three (0.13%) combined ALH + FEA and one (0.04%) combined ALH + FEA + ADH. Subsequent surgical excisions were done in 53 cases and revealed the following incidences of malignancy: pure FEA (1/8); pure ADH (17/31); FEA + ADH (7/10); FEA + ALH (2/3); and FEA + ALH + ADH (0/1), with pure FEA showing significantly lower incidence of malignancy. In this cohort, there were 703 carcinomas including 155 DCIS with 78 cases (50.3%) being low-grade. FEA with ADH (and/or ALH) was present in 22 (28.2%) of these 78 cases of low-grade DCISs at surgical excisions. Pure FEA was not detected in any of the subsequently excised surgical materials of the atypical intraductal lesions nor the low-grade DCISs. Thus, pure FEA was very unusual in surgical specimens. When pure FEA is detected at needle biopsy, a wait and see approach can be adopted. However, when the FEA is associated with other concomitant atypical intraductal lesions, especially ADH, further excision should be contemplated.

Flat epithelial atypia (FEA) of the breast have a tendency to calcify and, as such, are becoming increasingly detected by mammography. There is no consensus yet on whether to excise these lesions or not after diagnosis on core needle biopsies (CNB). We reviewed 3,948 cases of breast CNB between June 2004 and June 2009 correlating histomorphologic, radiological, and clinical features. There were 3.7 % (145/3,948) pure FEA and 1.5 % (58/3,948) concomitant FEA and atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH). In the pure FEA population, 46.2 % (67/145) had microcalcifications on mammography with 65.5 % (95/145) of patients undergoing subsequent excisional biopsies with the following findings: benign 20 % (19/95), ADH 37.9 % (36/95), ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) 1.1 % (1/95), and DCIS and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) 2.1 % (2/95). In the concomitant FEA and ADH group, 86.2 % (50/58) patients had microcalcifications on radiograph with 74.1 % (43/58) of patients undergoing subsequent excisions with: benign 23.3 % (10/43), DCIS 9.3 % (4/43), DCIS and IDC 4.7 % (2/43), DCIS + lobular carcinoma in situ + invasive lobular carcinoma 2.3 % (1/43), and tubular carcinoma 2.3 % (1/43). The incidence of carcinoma in the FEA + ADH group is 18.6 % (8/43) and 3.2 % (3/95) for the pure FEA group. This difference is statistically significant (p = 0.0016). The relative risk of carcinoma in the ADH + FEA group versus the pure FEA group is 6.4773, with 95 % CI of 1.8432 and 22.76 24. Five-year mean follow-up in the unexcised pure FEA did not show any malignancies. These findings suggest that pure FEA has a very low association with carcinoma, and these patients may benefit from close clinical and mammographic follow-up while the combined pure FEA and ADH cases may be re-excised.

Therapeutic mammotome excision of BI-RADS 4A breast masses

The diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) at needle core breast biopsy (NCB) is typically regarded as an indication for surgical excision. Although ADH is an intermediate risk nonobligate precursor lesion, the rationale for further therapy is the result of a reported high prevalence of a concomitant more advanced lesion (typically ductal carcinoma in situ) as the index lesion. To assess whether certain histopathologic features of ADH in NCB are predictive of open biopsy outcomes, the authors correlated the extent and pattern of ADH in 47 core biopsies (11-or 14-gauge) with the subsequent surgical specimen. Extent of ADH on NCB was ascertained by determining the number of large ducts and/or terminal duct-lobular units affected, with involvement of one large duct or one terminal duct-lobular unit representing a single focus, involvement of one duct and one terminal duct-lobular unit as two foci, and so on. Of the 47 cases, ADH was restricted to < or =2 foci in 24 cases (51.1%), confined to 3 foci in 8 cases (17.0%), and involved > or =4 foci in 15 cases (31.9%). The corresponding histopathologic findings at excision were benign lesions without atypia (n = 14), focal residual ADH (n = 13), atypical lobular hyperplasia (n = 3), ductal carcinoma in situ (n = 15), and invasive mammary carcinoma (n = 2). When the number of foci of involvement by ADH on NCB (based on an average of 11.6 cores per case) was correlated with the open biopsy results, all cases of ADH limited to < or =2 foci had no worse lesion on excision, whereas ADH present in > or =4 foci was found to be a strong predictor of a more advanced lesion on excision (p <0.0001, chi2). When histologic pattern was evaluated, all cases of pure micropapillary ADH on NCB showed pure micropapillary ductal carcinoma in situ on excision.

Introduction/Objective Mucocele-like lesions (MLLs) are characterized by cystically dilated, mucin-filled ducts, usually associated with rupture and extravasation of mucin into the stroma. The epithelium lining the ducts may be attenuated or show a spectrum of proliferative changes ranging from hyperplasia to atypical hyperplasia to ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Our study aims to evaluate the necessity of excision of pure MLL without atypia diagnosed on core needle biopsy (CNB). Methods/Case Report We retrospectively identified all subsequent in-house CNBs obtained between January 2017- August 2022 with MLLs. We reviewed all CNB slides with the diagnosis containing a “mucocele-like lesion” and assessed radiologic-pathologic concordance. An upgrade was defined as invasive carcinoma and/or DCIS in the excision. The excision slides of all upgraded cases were re-reviewed. Out of ~16000 consecutive CNBs in the study period, 69 CNBs from 69 patients yielded MLL alone, MLL with atypia, or MLL with carcinoma. We excluded 43 CNBs (7 patients with prior/concurrent carcinoma and 36 without excision). The final cohort consisted of 25 CNBs (14 with pure mucocele-like lesions and 11 MLLs with atypia). The CNB targeted mammographic calcifications in 42 cases, and 4 sonographic mass. Results (if a Case Study enter NA) Subsequent excision or clinical follow-up was available for 14 pure MLLs—of which one was upgraded. Five excisions showed atypia (4 atypical ductal hyperplasias (ADH) and one atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH)). Excisions of 11 MLL with atypia yielded 1 case upgraded to DCIS (9.09%, 1/11) and seven excisions showed atypia (5 ADH, 1 ALH, and 1 flat epithelial atypia). DCIS in an upgraded case was in an area with biopsy site changes. There was no upgrade to invasive carcinoma in either group. Among the 36 MLLs excluded from the study due to not having excision available for review, twelve were followed up with interval radiology and showed either stable lesions or no residual calcifications. Conclusion There was one case with upgrade of pure MLLs in our series. Clinicoradiological surveillance can be considered in a patient without prior/current carcinoma in pathological-radiological concordant CNB diagnosis of pure MLL.

High-risk lesions (HRL) of the breast are risk factors for future breast cancer development and may be associated with a concurrent underlying malignancy when identified on needle biopsy; however, there are few data evaluating HRLs in carriers of germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in breast cancer predisposition genes. We identified patients from two institutions with germline PVs in high- and moderate-penetrance breast cancer predisposition genes and an HRL in an intact breast, including atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), flat epithelial atypia (FEA), and lobular neoplasia (LN). We calculated upgrade rates at surgical excision and used Kaplan-Meier methods to characterize 3-year breast cancer risk in patients without upgrade. Of 117 lesions in 105 patients, 65 (55.6%) were ADH, 48 (41.0%) were LN, and 4 (3.4%) were FEA. Most PVs (83.8%) were in the BRCA1/2, CHEK2 and ATM genes. ADH and FEA were excised in most cases (87.1%), with upgrade rates of 11.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.5-23.4%) and 0%, respectively. LN was selectively excised (53.8%); upgrade rate in the excision group was 4.8% (95% CI 0.8-22.7%), and with 20 months of median follow-up, no same-site cancers developed in the observation group. Among those not upgraded, the 3-year risk of breast cancer development was 13.1% (95% CI 6.3-26.3%), mostly estrogen receptor-positive (ER +) disease (89.5%). Upgrade rates for HRLs in patients with PVs in breast cancer predisposition genes appear similar to non-carriers. HRLs may be associated with increased short-term ER+ breast cancer risk in PV carriers, warranting strong consideration of surgical or chemoprevention therapies in this population.

Management of flat epithelial atypia on breast core biopsy may be individualized based on correlation with imaging studies

BackgroundThis study aimed to assess inter-observer variability between the original diagnostic reports and later review by a specialist in breast pathology considering lobular neoplasias (LN), columnar cell lesions (CCL), atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast.MethodsA retrospective, observational, cross-sectional study was conducted. A total of 610 breast specimens that had been formally sent for consultation and/or second opinions to the Breast Pathology Laboratory of Federal University of Minas Gerais were analysed between January 2005 and December 2010. The inter-observer variability between the original report and later review was compared regarding the diagnoses of LN, CCL, ADH, and DCIS. Statistical analyses were conducted using the Kappa index.ResultsWeak correlations were observed for the diagnoses of columnar cell change (CCC; Kappa = 0.38), columnar cell hyperplasia (CCH; Kappa = 0.32), while a moderate agreement (Kappa = 0.47) was observed for the diagnoses of flat epithelial atypia (FEA). Good agreement was observed in the diagnoses of atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH; Kappa = 0.62) and lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS; Kappa = 0.66). However, poor agreement was observed for the diagnoses of pleomorphic LCIS (Kappa = 0.22). Moderate agreement was observed for the diagnoses of ADH (Kappa = 0.44), low-grade DCIS (Kappa = 0.47), intermediate-grade DCIS (Kappa = 0.45), and DCIS with microinvasion (Kappa = 0.56). Good agreement was observed between the diagnoses of high-grade DCIS (Kappa = 0.68).ConclusionsAccording to our data, the best diagnostic agreements were observed for high-grade DCIS, ALH, and LCIS. CCL without atypia and pleomorphic LCIS had the worst agreement indices.Virtual SlidesThe virtual slide(s) for this article can be found here: http://www.diagnosticpathology.diagnomx.eu/vs/1640072350119725.

Breast-specific Gamma Imaging in the Detection of Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia and Lobular Neoplasia

Background: Women diagnosed with atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH), lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS), and borderline ADH/DCIS are at increased risk for breast cancer, but the precise degree of risk varies widely in the literature. Information from prior studies is limited by grouping ADH and ALH together and by small cohort sizes. Objectives: To identify women with a pathologic diagnosis of ADH, ALH, LCIS, and borderline ADH/DCIS using Natural Language Processing. To evaluate breast cancer risk based on atypia type. Methods: Using Natural Language Processing, we reviewed all electronically available pathology reports from Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Newton-Wellesley Hospital (members of Partners HealthCare System) from 1987–2010. We identified all women with a diagnosis of ADH, ALH, LCIS, and borderline ADH/DCIS with no prior or concurrent diagnosis of breast cancer. We determined the incidence of subsequent invasive and noninvasive breast cancer, the side of cancer diagnosis compared to original atypia side, and the time to cancer diagnosis for each atypia type. Results: We reviewed 76,333 path reports in 42,950 unique individuals and identified 3049 women who were diagnosed with atypical breast lesions over this 14-year period; 1233 (40.4%) had ADH, 851 (27.9%) had ALH, 595 (19.5%) had LCIS, and 370 (12.1%) had borderline ADH/DCIS. The mean age for atypia diagnosis was 51 years (range: 18–93). At a mean follow-up of 66 months, cancer occurred in 7.0% of women with ADH, 11.3% of women with ALH, 11.1% of women with LCIS, and 8.4% of women with borderline ADH/DCIS. The median time to breast cancer diagnosis was 48 months with ADH, 50 months with ALH, 47 months with LCIS, and 60 months with borderline ADH/DCIS. Significantly more ipsilateral cancers developed than contralateral cancers for all types of atypia combined (p=0.027). The development of invasive versus noninvasive breast cancer was not significantly affected by atypia type. Subsequent cancers were DCIS in 121 patients (43.4%) and invasive in 158 patients (56.6%). Kaplan Meier curves for time to cancer diagnosis based on atypia type were created. The curves for ADH and borderline ADH/DCIS were similar and significantly different than the curves for ALH and LCIS (p&amp;lt;0.001). The estimated 5 and 10-year breast cancer risks for each atypia type are presented in Table 1. Conclusion: A diagnosis of ADH, ALH, LCIS, or borderline ADH/DCIS increases a woman's risk of invasive and noninvasive breast cancer in either breast. The breast cancer risk at 5 and 10 years is significantly higher in those with ALH or LCIS compared to those with ADH or borderline ADH/DCIS, but there is little difference in risk between ADH and borderline ADH/DCIS or between LCIS and ALH. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr S4-4.

Abstract #3001 Purpose&amp;#x2028; Pathology reports contain extensive research information that is inaccessible except through costly and time consuming chart reviews. This is due to the fact that pathology reports are recorded as semi-structured prose with critically important descriptive text intended for human interpretation. Key challenges for processing this data include interpreting multiple methods of describing the same finding, and subsequently aggregating the findings of multiple reports into episodes of care. Investigators tested NLP techniques in the processing of pathology reports into structured data and episodes of care, allowing for the rapid identification and epidemiologic modeling of high-risk breast lesions.&amp;#x2028; Methods&amp;#x2028; Using state-of-the-art NLP software (ClearForest, A Thomson Reuters Company, Waltham, MA), breast pathology reports stored as text files were processed into a structured electronic database using these steps: 1) identification of diagnosis of interest (i.e. high risk lesions, cancer), 2) use of NLP to identify all terms and phrases used to report each finding (e.g. atypical hyperplasia, hyperplasia with atypia), 3) grouping of relevant terms into categories, 4) identification of categories occurring in each patient report, and 5) grouping of patient reports into episodes of care (defined as all reports within 6 months of an initial diagnosis).&amp;#x2028; Results&amp;#x2028; Under IRB approval, 27,931 breast pathology reports from Massachusetts General Hospital in 16,208 patients seen between 1990-2007 were analyzed. The results were compared against manually reviewed pathology reports for quality control. For DCIS diagnoses, the initial error rate for both the NLP process and the manual process was 2%. The NLP process was then re-tuned using the identified discrepancies which reduced the error rate to zero. Using the refined model, we identified 1) patients with atypical lesions (atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), severe ADH, atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH), and lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS)) without prior or concurrent cancer, and 2) patients who developed cancer greater than 6 months post diagnosis.&amp;#x2028; &amp;#x2028; Conclusion&amp;#x2028; This process successfully identified high-risk diagnoses that were otherwise relatively inaccessible, and appears to match the accuracy of a human research associate. The results of this first implementation are promising and will be further validated over time. In the future, this approach can be applied to other medical reports and diseases. NLP has significant potential to decrease the cost of research and for improving patient care. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(2 Suppl):Abstract nr 3001.

The purpose of this study was to establish the upgrade rate of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) diagnosed by stereotactic vacuum-assisted core needle biopsy for calcifications detected by digital mammography as compared with film-screen mammography. A retrospective record search identified 101 cases of ADH. Criteria included women with calcifications biopsied using stereotactic vacuum-assisted core needle biopsy at our institution between January 2001 and December 2011. The center transitioned from film-screen mammography in 2001 to all digital mammography by 2010. Stereotactic vacuum-assisted core needle biopsies were performed using 11-gauge (59/101 [58%]) or 8-gauge (42/101 [42%]) needles. All pathology was interpreted by breast pathologists using standard criteria. Of 101 cases of ADH, 57 (56.4%) were detected using digital and 44 (43.6%) were detected using film-screen mammography. Seven of 57 (12.3%) cases of ADH detected by digital mammography were upgraded to ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (n = 6) or invasive cancer (n = 1). Six of 44 (13.6%) cases of ADH detected by film-screen mammography were upgraded to DCIS (n = 5) or invasive cancer (n = 1) (p = 0.84). There was a trend toward low-grade DCIS in cases detected by digital mammography (3/7 [42.9%]) as compared with film-screen mammography (1/6 [16.7%]) (p = 0.68). A nonsignificant overall higher percentage of upgrades occurred when calcifications were not completely removed (10/52 [19.2%]) as compared with completely removed (3/47 [6.4%]). There was no difference in upgrade rate of stereotactic vacuum-assisted core needle biopsy performed using 11-gauge (7/59 [11.9%]) versus 8-gauge (6/42 [14.3%]) needles. The upgrade rate of ADH diagnosed by stereotactic vacuum-assisted core needle biopsy was not significantly different between digital and film-screen mammography. The current recommendation for excision of ADH diagnosed by stereotactic vacuum-assisted core needle biopsy should be applied to ADH detected by digital mammography.

ACOSOG Z11102 demonstrated that breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with radiation is safe for multiple ipsilateral breast cancers (MIBCs), with re-excision and mastectomy conversion rates of 32.4% and 7.1%, respectively. Our objective was to evaluate the applicability of ACOSOG Z11102 in real-world practice. A retrospective review of MIBC patients was performed to collect clinical and demographic information. Pathology was re-reviewed by two breast pathologists assessing distance between foci and presence of significant pathology in intervening tissue (incidental invasive carcinoma, ductal carcinoma in situ [DCIS], atypical ductal hyperplasia [ADH], atypical lobular hyperplasia [ALH], lobular carcinoma in situ [LCIS], and flat epithelial atypia [FEA]). Overall, 116 evaluable patients (70 mastectomy, 46 BCS) were included. The median age was 64years (range 34-93), the median number of foci was 2 (range 1-3), and the median size of the largest focus was 1.7cm (range 0.4-6.5). Most patients were cT1 (84, 72.4%) and cN0 (111, 95.7%). Of the 46 BCS patients, 23 (50%) needed re-excisions. Eleven of these 23 (47.8%) patients had successful re-excisions, while 12 (52.2%) underwent mastectomy. The successful BCS rate was 73.9%, with conversion to mastectomy in 26.1%. On review of intervening tissue, 26 (22.4%) patients had no pathologic findings, 57 (49.1%) had DCIS, 19 (16.4%) had ALH, 13 (11.2%) had ADH, 11 (9.5%) had LCIS, 6 (5.2%) had additional incidental invasive carcinoma, and 1 (0.9%) had FEA. Factoring in intervening findings and Z11102 criteria, 15/70 (21.4%) patients who underwent mastectomy could have been eligible for BCS. Patient selection is critical when considering BCS for MIBC, as re-excision and mastectomy conversion rates may be higher in real-world practice.

We evaluated the reliability of stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsies (VAB) from our personal experience. Between January 2003 and December 2005, 268 patients underwent VAB with an 11-gauge probe at our institution. Inclusion criteria were nonpalpable lesions, undetectable by ultrasound and suspected at mammography (microcalcifications, circumscribed mass, architectural distortion), for which cytology and/or core biopsy could not provide a definite diagnosis. Lesion mammographic patterns were microcalcifications in 186 cases (77.5%), mostly localised clusters (130/186: 70%); circumscribed mass with or without microcalcifications in 36 cases (15%) and architectural distortion with or without microcalcifications in 18 cases (7.5%). On the basis of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classification, 16 cases (7%) were graded as highly suspicious for malignancy (BI-RADS 5), 81 (34%) as suspicious for malignancy (BI-RADS 4b), 97 (40%) as indeterminate (BI-RADS 4a) and 46 (19%) as probably benign (BI-RADS 3). Lesion size was <or=10 mm in 161 cases (67%) and >20 mm in only 38 cases (16%), 30 of which appeared as microcalcifications. In 28/268 lesions (10.5%) the biopsy could not be performed (nonidentification of the lesion; inaccessibility due to location or breast size). In 12/240 (5%) biopsies, the sample was not representative. Pathology revealed 100/240 (42%) malignant or borderline lesions and 140/240 (58%) benign lesions. Among the malignant lesions, 16/100 (16%) were invasive carcinoma [infiltrating ductal carcinoma (IDC) or infiltrating lobular carcinoma (ILC)], 13/100 (13%) were microinvasive (T1mic), 35/100 (35%) were ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), 9/100 (9%) were lobular carcinoma in situ (CLIS). Among the borderline lesions, 27/100 (27%) were atypical epithelial hyperplasia [atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) or atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH)]. In 9/100 surgically treated lesions (9%), there was discordance between the microhistological findings of VAB and the pathological results of the surgical procedure: 8/9 were underestimated by VAB (four ADH vs. DCIS, three DCIS vs. IDC, one ADH vs. IDC), and 1/9 was overestimated (T1mic vs. DCIS). Complications following VAB occurred in 9/240 patients (3.7%). In our experience, VAB showed fair reliability in the diagnosis of nonpalpable breast lesions despite a portion of failed (10.5%), nonsignificant (5%) procedures and underestimated lesions (9%).