Introduction: Cytological diagnosis of borderline breast lesions remains challenging, and interobserver variability exists in their interpretation. The Masood scoring index (MSI) has been proposed to help in the subgrouping of breast lesions using objective criteria. Aim: The aim of the present study was to assess the interobserver variability in the scoring of breast lesions according to MSI and to see the utility of a modified scheme for discriminating benign and atypical lesions. Study Design: Papanicolaou-stained smears (100 cases) that underwent fine needle aspiration for a palpable breast lump were independently evaluated by 2 observers, and the cases were categorized as per MSI. Percent agreement beyond chance score between both observers was calculated. Sensitivity analysis was performed by comparing the scores using models containing different parameters of MSI. Results: The agreement amongst the 2 observers for scores was found to be 0.88 and it was 69% for category-wise diagnosis. Sensitivity analysis showed that the model with only 3 cytological parameters (cell arrangement, pleomorphism, and nucleoli) had similar discrimination ability in the classification of breast disease as benign or atypical as the standard MSI model. Conclusion: Further simplified models of MSI should be tested for improved diagnostic accuracy and wider acceptability.

Keywords:
Masood scoring index, Breast, Aspiration, Proliferative lesions, Atypia, Benign lesion, Carcinoma
1.
Bray F, Ren JS, Masuyer E, Ferlay J: Estimates of global cancer prevalence for 27 sites in the adult population in 2008. Int J Cancer 2013;132:1133-1145.
2.
Rekha TS, Nandini NM: Evaluation of breast neoplastic lesions by different cytology grading methods. Sci J Clin Med 2015;4:26-30.
3.
Rekha TS, Nandini NM, Manjunath GV: Expansion of Masood's cytologic index for breast carcinoma and its validity. J Cytol 2013;30:233-236.
4.
Nandini NM, Rekha TS, Manjunath GV: Evaluation of scoring system in cytological diagnosis and management of breast lesion with review of literature. Indian J Cancer 2011;48:240-245.
5.
Masood S: Cytomorphology of fibrocystic change, high-risk proliferative breast disease and premalignant breast lesions. Clin Lab Med 2005;25:713-731.
6.
Dupont WD, Page DL: Risk factors for breast cancer in women with proliferative breast disease. N Engl J Med 1985;312:146-151.
7.
Fitzgibbons PL, Henson DE, Hutter RV: Benign breast changes and the risk for subsequent breast cancer: an update of the 1985 consensus statement. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1998;122:1053-1055.
8.
Schnitt SJ: Benign breast disease and breast cancer risk: morphology and beyond. Am J Surg Pathol 2003;27:836.
9.
Hartmann LC, Sellers TA, Frost MH, Lingle WL, Degnim AC, Ghosh K: Benign breast disease and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;353:229.
10.
Frost AR, Tabbara SO, Poprocky LA, Weiss H, Sidawy MK: Cytologic features of proliferative breast disease. A study designed to minimize sampling error. Cancer 2000;90:33-40.
11.
Orell SR, Sterrett GF: Breast; in Cangiarella J, Simsir A (eds): Orell and Sterrett Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology, ed 5. India, Elsevier/Churchill Livingstone, 2012, pp 156-209.
12.
Baker JC, Ostrander JH, Lem S, Broadwater G, Bean GR, D'Amato NC, et al: ESR1 promoter hypermethylation does not predict atypia in RPFNA nor persistent atypia after 12 months tamoxifen chemoprevention. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17:1884-1890.
13.
Ellis IO: Intraductal proliferative lesions of the breast: morphology, associated risk and molecular biology. Mod Pathol 2010;23:S1-S7.
14.
Hunt CM, Ellis IO, Elston CW, Locker A, Pearson D, Blamey RW: Cytological grading of breast carcinoma - a feasible proposition? Cytopathology 1990;1:287-295.
15.
Sidawy MK, Stoler MH, Frable WJ, et al: Interobserver variability in the classification of proliferative breast lesions by fine-needle aspiration: results of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology Study. Diagn Cytopathol 1998;18:150-165.
16.
Sneige N, Staerkel GA: Fine needle aspiration cytology of ductal hyperplasia with and without atypia and ductal carcinoma in situ. Hum Pathol 1994;25:485-492.
17.
Masood S, Frykberg ER, McLellan GL, Dee S, Bullard JB: Cytologic differentiation between proliferative and nonproliferative breast disease in mammographically guided fine-needle aspirates. Diagn Cytopathol 1991;7:581-590.
18.
Mridha AR, Iyer VK, Kapila K, Verma K: Value of scoring system in classification of proliferative breast disease on fine needle aspiration cytology. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 2006;49:334-340.
19.
Sidawy MK, Tabbara SO, Bryan JA, Poprocky LA, Frost AR: The spectrum of cytologic features in nonproliferative breast lesions. Cancer 2001;93:140-145.
20.
Mendoza P, Lacambra M, Tan PH, Tse GM: Fine needle aspiration cytology of the breast: the nonmalignant categories. Pathol Res Int 2011;2011:547580.
© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel
2017
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.