Table 1. Adjusted Burbank & Parker method for the evaluation of results of image-guided intervention and histological findings at surgical excision.
|
Histologic findings of surgical excision |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Image-guided intervention | Nonconclusive | Benign | High risk | DCIS | Invasive carcinoma |
| Nonconclusive | NC | NC | NC | NC | |
| Benign | A | U (agreement) | U (miss) | U (miss) | |
| High risk (histology) | O (agreement) | A | U (HR underestimate) | U (HR underestimate) | |
| DCIS | O | O | A | U (DCIS underestimate) | |
| Invasive carcinoma | O (agreement) | O (agreement) | O (agreement) | A | |
| Malignancy on cytology | O (overestimate) | O (overestimate) | O (DCIS overestimate) | A | |
Agreement=the patient management was correct on behalf of the pathology findings on core biopsy; miss=core biopsy missed the clinically relevant malignancy (in situ or invasive); HR underestimate=although a high-risk lesion was found on core biopsy and the appropriate clinical management was taken (surgical biopsy), the malignancy (in situ or invasive) was missed on core; DCIS underestimate=in the surgical specimen for the treatment of DCIS found on core biopsy, an invasive component was discovered; Overestimate=although malignant cells were found on FNA, no invasive carcinoma was found in the surgical specimen.NC=nonconclusives; A=agreements; O=overestimates; U=underestimates.