Currently, accurate diagnosis of breast lesions depends on a triple assessment approach comprising clinical, imaging and pathologic examinations. Fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) is widely adopted for the pathologic assessment because of its accurracy and ease of use. While much has been written about the atypical and maliganant categories of FNAC diagnosis, little covers the non-malignanat category which represents a sheer number in all FNAC cases. Moreover, any false-negative diagnosis of the non-malignant cases may lead to missed diagnosis of cancer. This paper aims to discuss the issues of smear adequacy, the cytologic features of benign breast lesions and the dilemma of a false-negative aspirate. Much has been suggested about the smear adequacy criterion, including quantifying epithelial clusters, whereas others advocate basing adequacy on qualitative quantum of using noncellular features of FNAC. Various benign lesions could be easily diagnosed at FNAC; however, they have cytologic features overlapped with malignant lesions. False negativity of FNAC does occur; this could be caused by either “true” false-negative cases attributed to suboptimal sampling technique, poor localization of the mass or nonpalpable lesions or “false” false-negative cases due to interpretational errors. Though false-positive cases are less commonly found, they will also be discussed briefly.

No abstract

Needle biopsy is now the initial investigation of choice for the pre-operative diagnosis of breast lesions. This includes core needle biopsy (CNB) and vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) with or without radiologic assistance. The performance indices of both of these biopsy techniques were evaluated. In a large cohort of patients with breast lesions including 464 cases (285 CNB and 179 VAB), with confirmed outcomes, the diagnostic accuracy was compared using parameters including quantitation of the sampling based on the total number of cores taken, cores containing breast parenchyma, and cores with lesion; and non-epithelial changes including necrosis and calcification. CNB showed a 99% PPV, 94% NPV, 96% sensitivity, and 99% specificity, whereas VAB demonstrated a 100% PPV, 100% NPV, 100% sensitivity, and 100% specificity. The correct diagnosis in CNB was proportional to the number of cores extracted, whereas accuracy of VAB was independent of the total number of cores taken. There was a positive correlation between the presence of calcification and malignancy in CNB, but not detected under VAB. CNB and VAB were equally efficient in palpable lesions, in detecting necrosis, and calcification. Large calcification was found to be associated with malignancy in both CNB and VAB. In non-palpable lesions, VAB was more effective in the detection of calcification. The diagnostic accuracy of VAB appeared to be independent of number of cores sampled, whereas CNB required a minimum of 3-4 cores to achieve high diagnostic accuracy.