background: male breast-cancer (MBC) is often diagnosed late. our purpose was to evaluate fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) versus tru-cut biopsy (TCNB) in MBC diagnosis. patients and methods: men with suspicious breast lesions were prospectively enrolled; 54 met the inclusion criteria and underwent FNAC and TCNB. FNAC, TCNB and gold-standard results were compared. results: unsatisfactory results were 11.1% after FNAC and none after TCNB (p=0.027). after gold-standard evaluation, the diagnosis of FNAC and TCNB was confirmed, respectively, in 63.0% and 98.1% and changed in 37.0% and 1.9% (p<0.001). the malignancy rate after FNAC, TCNB and surgery were, respectively, 25.9%, 33.3% and 35.1% (FNAC vs. TCNB p=0.5276, FNAC vs. surgery p=0.404; TCNB vs. surgery p=1). among invasive carcinomas, 93.8% were identified by FNAC vs. 87.5% by TCNB (p=1); all ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) were detected after TCNB and none after FNAC (p=0.1). conclusion: FNAC leads to a significantly higher number of inadequate samplings and seems to be subject to increased DCIS misdiagnoses. TCNB correlated better to the final histological report.
Adriana Pistolese, C., Perretta, T., Claroni, G., Anemona, L., Servadei, F., Collura, A., et al. (2020). A Prospective Evaluation of Tru-Cut Biopsy and Fine-needle Aspiration Cytology in Male Breast Cancer Detection. IN VIVO, 34(6), 3431-3439 [10.21873/invivo.12182].
A Prospective Evaluation of Tru-Cut Biopsy and Fine-needle Aspiration Cytology in Male Breast Cancer Detection
Perretta, T.;Anemona, L.;Servadei, F.;Collura, A.;Censi, M.;Materazzo, M.;Pellicciaro, M.;Lamacchia, F.;Vanni, G.
2020-01-01
Abstract
background: male breast-cancer (MBC) is often diagnosed late. our purpose was to evaluate fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) versus tru-cut biopsy (TCNB) in MBC diagnosis. patients and methods: men with suspicious breast lesions were prospectively enrolled; 54 met the inclusion criteria and underwent FNAC and TCNB. FNAC, TCNB and gold-standard results were compared. results: unsatisfactory results were 11.1% after FNAC and none after TCNB (p=0.027). after gold-standard evaluation, the diagnosis of FNAC and TCNB was confirmed, respectively, in 63.0% and 98.1% and changed in 37.0% and 1.9% (p<0.001). the malignancy rate after FNAC, TCNB and surgery were, respectively, 25.9%, 33.3% and 35.1% (FNAC vs. TCNB p=0.5276, FNAC vs. surgery p=0.404; TCNB vs. surgery p=1). among invasive carcinomas, 93.8% were identified by FNAC vs. 87.5% by TCNB (p=1); all ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) were detected after TCNB and none after FNAC (p=0.1). conclusion: FNAC leads to a significantly higher number of inadequate samplings and seems to be subject to increased DCIS misdiagnoses. TCNB correlated better to the final histological report.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
in_vivo-34-3431[1].pdf
solo utenti autorizzati
Tipologia:
Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza:
Copyright dell'editore
Dimensione
2.71 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
2.71 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.