Abstract

Introduction: For nonpalpable breast lesions, imaging-guided breast tissue biopsy has become a viable alternative to open surgical biopsy. It can be difficult to talk about abnormal results of the connection between imaging and pathology findings because they can help with decision-making about additional treatment options by arriving at a full diagnosis.
Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective study. A specialist radiologist collected and classified radiological data from 500 patients' imaging-guided breast biopsies over a 6-year period using the BIRADS format. The discordance between histopathology reports was investigated.
Results: A total of 500 cases were reviewed. Approximately 4.6% (23) of cases fell into BIRADS 2 category, 33.6% (168) of cases fell into the BIRADS 3 category, 24.4% (122) into the BIRADS 4, 36.6% (183) into BIRADS 5 categories and 0.8% (4) into BIRADS 6 categories. Approximately 49.2% (n = 246) cases were benign, 3.4% (17) belonged to the high‑risk category, and 47.4% (237) were malignant. The number of discordant cases was 12 (2.4%), mostly due to technical factors. The sensitivity of biopsies to detect malignancy was 85%, specificity was 96%, and accuracy of biopsy in diagnosing cancer was 90%.
Discussion: The most sensitive way for detecting early breast cancer is the "triple assessment." Because of the high occurrence of carcinoma in these lesions, an effective communication line between a physician, radiologist, and pathologist is required for surgical excision in discordance.
Conclusion: In discordant cases, the ultimate choice is based on two concordant findings out of the three parameters, either due to abnormal imaging results or abnormal pathology findings. A multidisciplinary breast conference is held, with the pathologist taking an active role.