Skip to main content
. 2007 Apr 17;96(8):1253–1257. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603714

Table A1. Distribution of B3 (lesions of uncertain malignant potential) core needle histology cases according to the type of lesion depicted on imaginga and the level of suspicion on imagingb in relation to outcomes in all subjects (N=372).

Subcategory of B3 core needle histology (number of cases) Lesions with excision histology outcome (n=285)c
Lesions not excised (n=87) (stable on review (49) or pending review (38))
Benign including atypical hyperplasiasd (n=181) Malignant (DCIS and invasive cancer) (n=104)
ADH M=20 (IM3=11, IM4=9) M=14 (IM3=5, IM4=8, IM5=1) M=5 (IM3=5)
(N=172) D=3 (IM3=1, IM4=2) D=1 (IM4=1) D=3 (IM3=3)
  C=55 (IM3=22, IM4=31, IM5=2) C=48 (IM3=19, IM4=26, IM5=3) C=23 (IM3=9, IM4=13, IM5=1)
LIN M=2 (IM3=1, IM4=1) M=4 (IM4=2, IM5=2) M=2 (IM2=2)
(N=29) D=3 (IM3=1, IM4=2) D=0 D=0
  C=4 (IM3=2, IM4=2) C=10 (IM3=6, IM4=4) C=4 (IM3=1, IM4=3)
Papillary lesion M=26 (IM3=20, IM4=6) M=7 (IM3=6, IM4=1) M=22 (IM3=18, IM4=4)
(N=70) D=0 D=0 C=4 (IM3=3, IM4=1)
  C=8 (IM3=6, IM4=2) C=3 (IM3=1, IM4=2)  
Radial scar M=12 (IM3=4, IM4=7, IM5=1) M=3 (IM3=1, IM4=2) M=15 (IM3=6, IM4=9)
(N=63) D=19 (IM3=12, IM4=7) D=2 (IM4=2) D=4 (IM3=3, IM4=1)
  C=4 (IM3=3, IM4=1) C=2 (IM3=1, IM4=1) C=2 (IM4=2)
Phyllodes tumour M=21 (IM3=20, IM4=1) M=3 (IM3=3) M=1 (IM3=1)
(N=25) D=0 D=0 D=0
  C=0 C=0 C=0
B3 (not otherwise specified) M=2 (IM3=2) M =1 (IM4=1) M=1 (IM3=1)
(N=7) D=0 D=0 D=0
  C=2 (IM4=2) C=0 C=1 (IM4=1)
Categorised as suspicious M=0 M=5 (IM3=4, IM4=1) M=0
(B4)c on review D=0 D=1 (IM4=1) D=0
(N=6) C=0 C=0 C=0
All categories M=83 (IM3=58, IM4=24, IM5=1) M=37 (IM3=21, IM4=13, IM5=3) M=46 (IM3=33, IM4=13)
(N=372) D=25 (IM3=14, IM4=11) D=4 (IM3=4) D=7 (IM3=6, IM4=1)
  C=73 (IM3=33, IM4=38, IM5=2) C=63 (IM3=27, IM4=33, IM5=3) C=34 (IM3=13, IM4=20, IM5=1)

ADH=atypical ductal hyperplasia; LIN=lobular intraepithelial neoplasia.

a

Type of lesion depicted on imaging: M=mass (or density), D=distortion, C=microcalcacification.

b

Level of suspicion on imaging (IM) using categories 1–5 (Houssami and Irwig, 1998) based on mammography classification, or on ultrasound classification where mammography was not carried out or was negative.

c

Six cases were classified as suspicious CNB results on further review (retained only for descriptive analysis).

d

‘Atypical hyperplasias’ on excision histology included ADH and LIN (lesions associated with increased future risk of breast cancer).