Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Oct 2.
Published in final edited form as: Ann Surg Oncol. 2023 Mar 11;30(7):4087–4094. doi: 10.1245/s10434-023-13319-4

Table 1:

Univariate analysis of factors associated with upgrade at excision

Variable Overall (n=208) n (%) No Upgrade (n=177) n (%) Upgrade (n=31) n (%) p-value
Age 0.094
<50 years 70 (34%) 55 (31%) 15 (48%)
≥50 years 138 (66%) 122 (69%) 16 (52%)
Imaging modality 0.7
Mammogram 159 (76%) 137 (77%) 22 (71%)
MRI 36 (17%) 29 (16%) 7 (23%)
Ultrasound 13 (6.2%) 11 (6.2%) 2 (6.5%)
Target lesion diameter <0.001
Median (IQR) 7 (4, 13) 6 (4, 12) 10 (7, 28)
Number of cores removed 0.8
Median (IQR) 8 (6, 9) 8 (6,9) 8 (6,9)
Needle gauge 0.5
9 183 (88%) 157 (89%) 26 (84%)
10 3 (1.4%) 2 (1.1%) 1 (3.2%)
11 3 (1.4%) 3 (1.7%) 0 (0%)
12 12 (5.8%) 9 (5.1%) 3 (9.7%)
13 2 (1.0%) 2 (1.1%) 0 (0%)
14 5 (2.4%) 4 (2.3%) 1 (3.2%)
Target fully removed by CNB 0.027
Yes 73 (35%) 68 (38%) 5 (16%)
No 135 (65%) 109 (61%) 26 (84%)
Extent of ADH 0.006
Focal 98 (47%) 91 (51%) 7 (23%)
Non-focal 110 (53%) 86 (49%) 24 (77%)
Co-existing atypia in CNB
FEA 43 (21%) 34 (19%) 9 (29%) 0.3
Lobular neoplasia 42 (20%) 36 (20%) 6 (19%) >0.9
Prior/concurrent breast carcinoma 0.4
Yes 82 (39%) 67 (38%) 15 (48%)
No 126 (61%) 110 (62%) 16 (52%)

IQR – interquartile range, CNB – core needle biopsy, ADH – atypical ductal hyperplasia, FEA – flat epithelial atypia