Equivocal diagnoses in breast aspiration biopsy cytology

Sources of uncertainty and the role of 'atypical/indeterminate' terminology

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In 1996, a National Cancer Institute committee recommended four categories as uniform terminology for breast fine-needle aspirations (FNAs): benign, malignant, suspicious/probably malignant, and atypical/indeterminate. The latter is a controversial category. This study evaluates the usefulness of the atypical/indeterminate term, and examines sources of diagnostic equivocation in breast FNA. Eight hundred and twenty-two consecutive breast FNAs were previously classified as benign, malignant, suspicious, or unsatisfactory. Two hundred and thirteen (25.9%) cases had surgical follow-up and were classified as true positive (TP), false positive (FP), true negative (TN), false negative (FN), true suspicious (TS), or false suspicious (FS). Slides from FN, FP, TS, and FS were reviewed for interpretative error, poor clarity or preservation, obscuring material, sampling error, or insufficient malignant criteria. Cases were also evaluated as to whether classification as 'atypical/indeterminate' would have improved patient care. There were 21/822 (2.6%) FN, 37/822 (4.5%) TS + FS, and 0 FP diagnoses. Seventy percent of suspicious diagnoses showed cancer on follow-up. The majority of FN and suspicious cases were due to sampling problems and insufficient criteria of malignancy. None were deemed more appropriately classified as 'atypical/indeterminate' All required surgical confirmation for treatment. All equivocal breast diagnoses are due to similar problems. Splitting them into 'suspicious/probably malignant' and 'atypical/indeterminate' would not lower the biopsy rate. A simpler three-part terminology of benign, malignant, and suspicious/equivocal, without qualification of the latter favoring benign or malignant, would provide more effective communication and appropriate follow-up.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)217-222
Number of pages6
JournalDiagnostic Cytopathology
Volume21
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1999

Fingerprint

Needle Biopsy
Terminology
Uncertainty
Cell Biology
Breast
Fine Needle Biopsy
National Cancer Institute (U.S.)
Selection Bias
Neoplasms
Patient Care
Biopsy
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anatomy

Cite this

@article{2932bf81d3304112a8f5725b7539aeda,
title = "Equivocal diagnoses in breast aspiration biopsy cytology: Sources of uncertainty and the role of 'atypical/indeterminate' terminology",
abstract = "In 1996, a National Cancer Institute committee recommended four categories as uniform terminology for breast fine-needle aspirations (FNAs): benign, malignant, suspicious/probably malignant, and atypical/indeterminate. The latter is a controversial category. This study evaluates the usefulness of the atypical/indeterminate term, and examines sources of diagnostic equivocation in breast FNA. Eight hundred and twenty-two consecutive breast FNAs were previously classified as benign, malignant, suspicious, or unsatisfactory. Two hundred and thirteen (25.9{\%}) cases had surgical follow-up and were classified as true positive (TP), false positive (FP), true negative (TN), false negative (FN), true suspicious (TS), or false suspicious (FS). Slides from FN, FP, TS, and FS were reviewed for interpretative error, poor clarity or preservation, obscuring material, sampling error, or insufficient malignant criteria. Cases were also evaluated as to whether classification as 'atypical/indeterminate' would have improved patient care. There were 21/822 (2.6{\%}) FN, 37/822 (4.5{\%}) TS + FS, and 0 FP diagnoses. Seventy percent of suspicious diagnoses showed cancer on follow-up. The majority of FN and suspicious cases were due to sampling problems and insufficient criteria of malignancy. None were deemed more appropriately classified as 'atypical/indeterminate' All required surgical confirmation for treatment. All equivocal breast diagnoses are due to similar problems. Splitting them into 'suspicious/probably malignant' and 'atypical/indeterminate' would not lower the biopsy rate. A simpler three-part terminology of benign, malignant, and suspicious/equivocal, without qualification of the latter favoring benign or malignant, would provide more effective communication and appropriate follow-up.",
author = "Howell, {Lydia P}",
year = "1999",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1002/(SICI)1097-0339(199909)21:3<217::AID-DC15>3.0.CO;2-7",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
pages = "217--222",
journal = "Diagnostic Cytopathology",
issn = "8755-1039",
publisher = "Wiley-Liss Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Equivocal diagnoses in breast aspiration biopsy cytology

T2 - Sources of uncertainty and the role of 'atypical/indeterminate' terminology

AU - Howell, Lydia P

PY - 1999/9

Y1 - 1999/9

N2 - In 1996, a National Cancer Institute committee recommended four categories as uniform terminology for breast fine-needle aspirations (FNAs): benign, malignant, suspicious/probably malignant, and atypical/indeterminate. The latter is a controversial category. This study evaluates the usefulness of the atypical/indeterminate term, and examines sources of diagnostic equivocation in breast FNA. Eight hundred and twenty-two consecutive breast FNAs were previously classified as benign, malignant, suspicious, or unsatisfactory. Two hundred and thirteen (25.9%) cases had surgical follow-up and were classified as true positive (TP), false positive (FP), true negative (TN), false negative (FN), true suspicious (TS), or false suspicious (FS). Slides from FN, FP, TS, and FS were reviewed for interpretative error, poor clarity or preservation, obscuring material, sampling error, or insufficient malignant criteria. Cases were also evaluated as to whether classification as 'atypical/indeterminate' would have improved patient care. There were 21/822 (2.6%) FN, 37/822 (4.5%) TS + FS, and 0 FP diagnoses. Seventy percent of suspicious diagnoses showed cancer on follow-up. The majority of FN and suspicious cases were due to sampling problems and insufficient criteria of malignancy. None were deemed more appropriately classified as 'atypical/indeterminate' All required surgical confirmation for treatment. All equivocal breast diagnoses are due to similar problems. Splitting them into 'suspicious/probably malignant' and 'atypical/indeterminate' would not lower the biopsy rate. A simpler three-part terminology of benign, malignant, and suspicious/equivocal, without qualification of the latter favoring benign or malignant, would provide more effective communication and appropriate follow-up.

AB - In 1996, a National Cancer Institute committee recommended four categories as uniform terminology for breast fine-needle aspirations (FNAs): benign, malignant, suspicious/probably malignant, and atypical/indeterminate. The latter is a controversial category. This study evaluates the usefulness of the atypical/indeterminate term, and examines sources of diagnostic equivocation in breast FNA. Eight hundred and twenty-two consecutive breast FNAs were previously classified as benign, malignant, suspicious, or unsatisfactory. Two hundred and thirteen (25.9%) cases had surgical follow-up and were classified as true positive (TP), false positive (FP), true negative (TN), false negative (FN), true suspicious (TS), or false suspicious (FS). Slides from FN, FP, TS, and FS were reviewed for interpretative error, poor clarity or preservation, obscuring material, sampling error, or insufficient malignant criteria. Cases were also evaluated as to whether classification as 'atypical/indeterminate' would have improved patient care. There were 21/822 (2.6%) FN, 37/822 (4.5%) TS + FS, and 0 FP diagnoses. Seventy percent of suspicious diagnoses showed cancer on follow-up. The majority of FN and suspicious cases were due to sampling problems and insufficient criteria of malignancy. None were deemed more appropriately classified as 'atypical/indeterminate' All required surgical confirmation for treatment. All equivocal breast diagnoses are due to similar problems. Splitting them into 'suspicious/probably malignant' and 'atypical/indeterminate' would not lower the biopsy rate. A simpler three-part terminology of benign, malignant, and suspicious/equivocal, without qualification of the latter favoring benign or malignant, would provide more effective communication and appropriate follow-up.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032770694&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0032770694&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0339(199909)21:3<217::AID-DC15>3.0.CO;2-7

DO - 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0339(199909)21:3<217::AID-DC15>3.0.CO;2-7

M3 - Article

VL - 21

SP - 217

EP - 222

JO - Diagnostic Cytopathology

JF - Diagnostic Cytopathology

SN - 8755-1039

IS - 3

ER -