Dear Editor, In a recently published article in Virchows Archiv, Menon et al. [1] provide interesting insight into the significance of lobular neoplasia (LN) on needle core biopsy of the breast. More specifically, commenting on 25 immediately excised LN cases, nine cases were apparently underestimated (five missed masses, two missed calcifications and two adequately sampled lesions). As a result, the overall underestimation rate is equal to nine of 25 (36%; 95%CI, 18.0-57.5%). However, as the authors noted, after the exclusion of the non-successful procedures, the underestimation rate becomes equal to two of 18 (11.1%; 95%CI, 1.4-34.7%).In this letter, we comparatively present the experience of our centre, expanding our LN series [2, 3]. Our series is based on stereotactically guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy performed with 11 Gauge needle; indeed, the setting and needle diameter utilised may exert a significant effect upon the crucial underestimation rates. In our setting, the underestimation rate was equal to 6.1% (two of 33; 95%CI, 0.7-20.2%); interestingly enough, no cases of technical failure occurred. The underestimation rate in our setting was significantly lower than the overall underestimation rate reported by Menon et al. (two of 33 vs. nine of 25; p= 0.006, Fisher's exact test). The above may be attributed to more accurate targeting of the lesion through the stereotactic guidance, as well as to the greater number of cores excised (24-96 cores, according to the results of a doubleblind study [3]). These two factors might effectively reduce the technical failure rate.On the other hand, our underestimation rate did not significantly differ from the one derived after the exclusion of unsuccessfully performed biopsy procedures (two of 33 vs. two of 18, p=0.607, Fisher's exact test). That points to the existence of a lower threshold for underestimation in LN, at which different techniques and settings converge and below which needle-based techniques may not proceed. Given the small sample sizes in the various studies, imposed by the relative rarity of the LN lesion, the exact magnitude of this inherent underestimation threshold may not be accurately estimated. Indeed, this is reflected upon the large confidence intervals presented above. However, it should be noted that the underestimation rate of about 20% for LN followed by surgical excision is a well-known phenomenon, and it is partly due to the fact that LN is clinically silent and to the multicentricity of the lesion itself. To have 6% of underestimation rate is very unusual, and it might be consequent to some selection artefact [4,5].