British Journal of Cancer

TABLE 1

FROM:

Diagnostic accuracy for different strategies of image-guided breast intervention in cases of nonpalpable breast lesions

R M Pijnappel, M van den Donk, R Holland, W P Th M Mali, J L Peterse, J H C L Hendriks and P H M Peeters

BACK TO ARTICLE

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 interventionNonconclusiveBenignHigh riskDCISInvasive carcinoma
Nonconclusive NCNCNCNC
      
Benign AU (agreement)U (miss)U (miss)
High risk (histology) O (agreement)AU (HR underestimate)U (HR underestimate)
DCIS OOAU (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.

BACK TO ARTICLE