Background: Fine-needle aspiration (FNA) of difficult breast lesions often results in an atypical (C3) report. The assortment of outcomes generated by C3 reports varies widely, and this has given rise to different clinical management pathways. Objective: To identify and objectively assess microscopic features associated with atypical/C3 breast FNA cases. Materials and Methods: A total of 230 atypical breast FNAs were subjected to a blind microscopic rescreen using a range of robust qualitative and quantitative cytological criteria including cellularity, architectural qualities, cytomorphology and background features. A logistic regression with a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and the resultant forward stepwise analysis were conducted to assess the results. This statistical testing was measured against malignant, benign proliferative and benign non-proliferative outcomes. Results: The malignant and benign proliferative outcomes showed a mixture of opposing protective and predictive individual cytological criteria. The stepwise analysis produced models demonstrating the best combination of individual cytological criteria for malignancy, proliferative and benign non-proliferative entities. In the malignancy model, discohesion, nuclear crowding within sheets, diminished numbers of bare bipolar nuclei and myoepithelial cells, the presence of tubules or necrosis and the absence of a cystic background were important features. The benign proliferative model suggested the same criteria but with the opposite implication and with the addition of several others, such as the presence of apocrine metaplasia, retained polarity and a speckled or coarse chromatin pattern. Age was a significant factor in malignant and proliferative outcomes. The benign non-proliferative stepwise analysis produced a model with fewer criteria (complex sheets, bare bipolar nuclei and a cystic background) limiting clinical application. Conclusion: Atypical/C3 breast cytology remains a legitimate reporting category. However, it is associated with a number of different histological outcomes. The incidence of the C3 category can be significantly reduced by controlling extrinsic factors and understanding the associated microscopic features.

Keywords:
Atypia, Breast, Fine-needle aspiration, Cytomorphology
1.
Department of Health and Ageing: Breast Fine-Needle Aspiration Cytology and Core Biospy: a guide for practice, ed 1. Camperdown, Australian Federal Government, 2004.
2.
National Quality Management Committee of BreastScreen Australia: BreastScreen Australia. National Accreditation Standards. 2001.
3.
Non-operative Diagnosis Subgroup of the National Coordinating Group for Breast Screening Pathology: Guidelines for Non-Operative Diagnostic Procedures and Reporting in Breast Cancer Screening. NHSBSP Publication No 50. NHS Cancer Screening Programme, 2001.
4.
The uniform approach to breast fine-needle aspiration biopsy: NIH Consensus Development Conference. Am J Surg 1997;174:371-385.
5.
Kocjan G, Bourgain C, Fassina A, Hagmar B, Herbert A, Kapila K, Kardum-Skelin I, Kloboves-Prevodnik V, Krishnamurthy S, Koutselini H, et al: The role of breast FNAC in diagnosis and clinical management: a survey of current practice. Cytopathology 2008;19:271-278.
6.
Weigner J, Zardawi I, Braye S: The true nature of atypical breast cytology. Acta Cytol 2013;57:464-472.
7.
Škrbínc B, Bábic A, Cúfer T, Us-Krášovec M: Cytological grading of breast cancer in Giemsa-stained fine needle aspiration smears. Cytopathology 2001;12:15-25.
8.
Masood S: Cytopathology of the Breast, vol. 5. Chicago, American Society of Clinical Pathologists, 1996.
9.
DeMay R: The Art and Science of Cytopathology, vol 2, ed 2. Chicago, ASCP Press, 2012.
10.
Orell SR, Sterrett G, Walters M, Whitaker D, Lindholm K: Breast; in Orell SR, Sterrett G, Walters M, Whitaker D (eds): Manual and Atlas of Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology, ed 3. London, Churchill Livingstone, 1999, pp 145-199.
11.
Moyes C, Dunne B: Predictive power of cytomorphological features in equivocal (C3, C4) breast FNAC. Cytopathology 2004;15:305-310.
12.
Eckert R, Howell LP: Number, size, and composition of cell clusters as related to breast FNA adequacy. Diagn Cytopathol 1999;21:105-111.
13.
Lim JC, Al-Masri H, Salhadar A, Xie HB, Gabram S, Wojcik EM: The significance of the diagnosis of atypia in breast fine-needle aspiration. Diagn Cytopathol 2004;31:285-288.
14.
Naib Zuher M: Cytopathology, ed 4. New York, Little, Brown and Company, 1996.
15.
Fan J, Upadhye S, Worster A: Understanding receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. CJEM 2006;8:19-20.
16.
StataCorp: Stata Release II. Statistical Software College Station, 2009.
17.
Hwang S, Ioffe O, Lee I, Waisman J, Cangiarella J, Simsir A: Cytologic diagnosis of invasive lobular carcinoma: factors associated with negative and equivocal diagnoses. Diagn Cytopathol 2004;31:87-93.
18.
Manfrin E, Falsirollo F, Remo A, Reghellin D, Mariotto R, Dalfior D, Piazzola E, Bonetti F: Cancer size, histotype, and cellular grade may limit the success of fine-needle aspiration cytology for screen-detected breast carcinoma. Cancer Cytopathol 2009;117:491-499.
19.
Boerner S, Sneige N: Specimen adequacy and false-negative diagnosis rate in fine-needle aspirates of palpable breast masses. Cancer Cytopathol 1998;84:344-348.
20.
Kumar R, Abbas A, Fausto N, Aster JC: Robbins and Cotran Pathologic Basis of Disease, ed 8. Philadelphia, Saunders, 2010.
21.
Saad RS, Kanbour-Shakir A, Syed A, Kanbour A: Sclerosing papillary lesion of the breast: a diagnostic pitfall for malignancy in fine needle aspiration biopsy. Diagn Cytopathol 2006;34:114-118.
22.
Tse GM, Ma TK, Lui PC, Ng DC, Yu AM, Vong JS, Niu Y, Chaiwun B, Lam WW, Tan PH: Fine needle aspiration cytology of papillary lesions of the breast: how accurate is the diagnosis? J Clin Pathol 2008;61:945-949.
23.
Simsir A, Waisman J, Cangiarella J: Fibroadenomas with atypia: causes of under- and overdiagnosis by aspiration biopsy. Diagn Cytopathol 2001;25:278-284.
24.
Bonzanini M, Gilioli E, Brancato B, Cristofori A, Bricolo D, Natale N, Valentini A, Dalla Palma P: The cytopathology of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. A detailed analysis of fine needle aspiration cytology of 58 cases compared with 101 invasive ductal carcinomas. Cytopathology 2001;12:107-119.
25.
Guo H-Q, Zhang Z-H, Zhao H, Zhao L-L, Pan Q-J: Recognizing breast ductal carcinoma in situ on fine-needle aspiration: a diagnostic dilemma. Diagn Cytopathol 2013;41:710-715.
26.
Orell SR: Pitfalls in fine needle aspiration cytology. Cytopathology 2003;14:173-182.
27.
Bulgaresi P, Cariaggi MP, Bonardi L, et al: Analysis of morphologic patterns of fine-needle aspiration of the breast to reduce false-negative results in breast cytology. Cancer 2005;105:152-157.
28.
Shabb NS, Boulos FI, Abdul-Karim FW: Indeterminate and erroneous fine-needle aspirates of breast with focus on the ‘true gray zone': a review. Acta Cytol 2013;57:316-331.
29.
Sidawy MK, Tabbara SO, Bryan JA, Poprocky LA, Frost AR: The spectrum of cytologic features in nonproliferative breast lesions. Cancer Cytopathol 2001;93:140-145.
30.
Frost AR, Tabbara SO, Poprocky LA, Weiss H, Sidawy MK: Cytologic features of proliferative breast disease. Cancer Cytopathol 2000;90:33-40.
31.
Frost AR, Aksu A, Kurstin R, Sidawy MK: Can nonproliferative breast disease and proliferative breast disease without atypia be distinguished by fine-needle aspiration cytology? Cancer Cytopathol 1997;81:22-28.
32.
Dey P: Time for evidence-based cytology. Cytojournal 2007;4:1-9.
© 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel
2014
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.