Is ductal carcinoma in situ with "possible invasion" more predictive of invasive carcinoma than pure ductal carcinoma in situ?

OBJECTIVES

To compare the underestimation of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) vs DCIS with "possible invasion" at breast biopsy and to determine if any factors related to clinical indication, imaging abnormality, biopsy, or DCIS-grade affected the likelihood of underestimation.

METHODS

Of 3836 consecutive lesions that were biopsied by using a 14-gauge needle, 117 lesions revealed DCIS. Surgical pathology results of invasive carcinoma were compared with needle biopsy results of DCIS or DCIS with possible invasion. Clinical indication, imaging abnormality, biopsy guidance modality, sample number, and histologic grade were recorded. Yates corrected χ(2) and Fisher exact tests were used to determine differences between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 101 lesions were DCIS and 16 were DCIS with possible invasion at biopsy. Thirty-six of 117 lesions (31%) revealed invasive carcinoma at resection pathology. Invasive carcinoma was present more often when DCIS with possible invasion was diagnosed compared with pure DCIS (7/16 [44%] vs 29/101 [29%], P = .36). No factor, including clinical indication, imaging abnormality, biopsy guidance method, sample number, or grade, was found to significantly affect the likelihood of underestimation for lesions diagnosed as DCIS vs DCIS with "possible invasion." The likelihood of pure DCIS underestimation significantly increased when lesions were high grade compared with either intermediate or low grade (18/44 [41%] vs 9/44 [21%] vs 2/10 [20%], P = .03).

CONCLUSION

For lesions biopsied by using a 14-gauge needle, there is a trend towards underestimation of the presence of invasive carcinoma when pathology reveals DCIS with possible invasion compared with pure DCIS. High-grade DCIS was significantly more likely to be underestimated.