Tag: Histopathology

Posted on

jhc-2019-jul-v-3-n-2-study-ansari-m

Study of Ovarian Tumours: Histomorphological Types

 *Ansari M,1  Khan AH,2 Hossain S,3 Khanom F4

  1. *Dr. MAS Ansari, Associate Professor of Pathology, Sylhet Women’s Medical College, Sylhet. drmasansari@gmail.com
  2. Professor Dr. Amjad Hossain Khan, Professor of Pathology, Sylhet Women’s Medical College, Sylhet.
  3. Sabbir Hossain, Associate Professor of Pathology, North East Medical College, North East Medical College, Sylhet.
  4. Farida Khanom, Medical Officer of Gynae & Obs, Jalalabad Ragib-Rabeya Medical Colleg, Sylhet.

 *For correspondence

 Abstract

Background: Ovarian tumour accounts for 3% of total cancer in females and is the 5th most common form of cancer related death in females with a varied clinical, morphological and histological features.

Objectives: The present  study was carreid out with an aim to find out  the frequency, age distribution and the histopathological  patterns of ovarian tumours.
Methods: Retrospective  study was done during the period  of 3 years comprised of 125 ovarian tumours diagnosed in the Department of Pathology, Sylhet Women’s Medical College, Sylhet. After thorough gross examination, representative bits were routinely processed and stained with H & E. Tumours were classified as per WHO classification.
Results: Out of 125 cases studied, majority were benign tumours (88%), followed by malignant (10.4%) and borderline tumour (1.6%). Age ranged from 11-70 years. Epithelial tumours were most common (76%), followed by germ cell tumours (16%), sex cord stromal tumours (7.2%) and metastatic ovarian tumours (0.8%). Serous cystadenoma was the commonest benign tumour and serous cyst adenocarcinoma was the commonest malignant ovarian tumour.
Conclusion: The prognosis and varying therapeutic strategies of ovarian tumours necessitate an accurate pathological evaluation. Although newer techniques like IHC and molecular analysis have made the diagnosis easier and more precise, in the institutes with provision of limited resources, histopathological study is still the gold standard in diagnosing most of these tumours.

 [Journal of Histopathology and Cytopathology, 2019 Jul; 3 (2):125-133]

Key words: Ovarian tumour, Histopathology

 Introduction

Ovarian tumours include complex, wide spectrum of neoplasms involving a variety of histological patterns ranging from epithelial tissues, connective tissues, specialized hormone secreting germinal and embryonal cells.1

The poor survival is due to the fact that they do not clinically manifest early and approximately 60-70% of the neoplasms present as either stage III or stage IV.1,3,4 Benign ovarian cysts are the commonest constituting about 80% of ovarian tumours and mostly occur in young women between the ages of 20-40 years. Borderline tumours occur at slightly older ages whereas the malignant tumours are common in older women between the ages of 40-65 years.1,4 Metastatic tumours subsequently involve the ovaries and mimic primary ovarian neoplasia. Approximately, 7% of lesions presenting clinically as primary ovarian tumours are of metastatic origin.5, 6 It is important to determine the histological pattern of ovarian tumour to achieve the optimum treatment response as prognosis depends on the degree of differentiation.2,3,7

Thus present study was undertaken to analyse the frequency of various histological subtypes, age distribution pattern and the  histopathological pattern of ovarian tumours.

 Methods

This retrospective  study was conducted for a period of 3 years (January2015 – December 2018) at Sylhet women’s Medical College, Sylhet.

Specimens sent in 10% formalin were routinely processed with paraffin embedding after adequate fixation. Paraffin sections and slides from fresh blocks and the retrieved blocks were stained with H & E. The slides were then reviewed microscopically in detail and tumours were classified according to the WHO classification of ovarian tumours.

Inclusion criteria

All histologically proven both primary and secondary ovarian tumours.

Exclusion criteria

Non- neoplastic ovarian lesions of study period.

Results

A total number of 125 cases were studied. Among these, majority were primary ovarian tumours (124; 99.2%), while one was metastatic ovarian tumours (1; 0.8 %). Of them 69 cases were benign (88%), 15 cases were malignant (10.4%) and rest 2 cases (1.6%) were borderline. Epithelial tumours (ET) were the most common histological type (95;76%), followed by Germ cell tumours (GCT) (20;16%) and sex cord stromal tumour (SST 9;7.2%; Table I).

Age Distribution

Majority of the tumours occurred in the reproductive age group (57; 45.6%) followed by 41-50 years of age group (26; 20.8%).Youngest patient was 13 years of age and older patient was about 68 years. Epithelial tumours and Sex cord stromal tumours had its peak between 31 to 40 years, whereas Germ cell tumours showed a peak in 21 to 30 years. Metastatic tumoursshowed  distribution between 61-70 years of age group.

 Gross Features

Most of the cases in this study were unilateral (117; 93.6%) and few were bilateral (8; 6.4%). Out of the total 95 Epithelial tumours, 76 were cystic in nature (80%), followed by those with cystic to solid in consistency (18; 18.9%) and solid (1; 1.05%), whereas most of Germ cell tumours were cystic in nature (16; 72.7%), followed by solid in consistency (5; 22.7%). Majority of sex cord stromal tumours (5; 71.4%) and all of the metastatic tumours were partly solid to cystic in consistency.

 Microscopy

The most common benign tumour was Serous cystadenoma (54; 43.2%), followed by Mucinous cystadenoma (14; 11.2%) and Mature cystic teratoma (16; 12.8%). Serous cyst adenocarcinoma was the most common malignant tumour (6; 4.8%), followed by Adult granulosa cell tumour (3; 2.4%). Borderline serous tumour were two in numbers. There was one case of metastatic ovarian tumours, was Krukenbergtumour. (Table II).

Discussion

Ovarian tumours are one of the major health problems and their diagnosis can be difficult due to variety of pathologic conditions affecting the ovaries. Thus knowledge of morphology and age-specific characteristics can help refine the diagnosis.8, 9

In the present study of 125 ovarian tumours, Primary ovarian neoplasms (99.2%) were the most common tumours of all ovarian tumours. Similar observations were made by Bhagyalakshmi A et al.10 (98.5%) and Vaddatti T et al.3 (98.9%). Most of the tumours belonged to Epithelial tumour category (76%) which was comparable to the results seen by Singh S et al.11 (69.17%), Krishna M & Maurya G12 (77.7%) and Badge S et al.13 (77%). GCT and SST accounted for 16% and 7.2%, respectively in our study compared to 42.2% and 3.1% reported in the others.14

In the present study, majority of the tumours were benign (88%) followed by malignant tumours (10.4%) and rest was borderline (1.6%). Findings of the present study correlated well with the studies of various authors.However, in this study the frequency of malignant tumours (10.4%) was little less than the study of Couto F et al.15 (40%).

In the present study, the patient’s age ranged from 11 years to 70 years and this was supported by the study done by Swamy GGEt al.16 where the youngest patient was 13 years old and the oldest was 68 years old. The majority of ovarian tumours (60.7%) were seen in the age group of 21-40 years, which was consistent with the study done by Kuladeepa A VK et al.17 (58.9%) and Pilli GS et al.18 (58.3%) .

In our study, majority of the tumours were unilateral (97.1%) and least were bilateral (2.9%) which were consistent with the findings of  VaddattiT et al.3, Jindal U8 and Prabhakar BR and Maingi K.19

In the present study, majority of the tumours were cystic (72%), followed by partly cystic & solid (18.4%) and few were solid (9.6%). These findings were comparable with the findings of Misra RK et al.20 where most of the tumours were cystic (78.2%) and few were solid (4.1%), whereas Couto F et al.15 have found 10.2% solid tumours which was close to our findings. Benign epithelial tumors were the commonest type (88.4%), followed by malignant epithelial tumors (9.47%) and the rest was borderline (2.10%). These findings were almost similar as observed in the study conducted by Kuladeepa A VK et al.17) Sharma I et al.21

In this study, maximum number of epithelial tumors (78%) were noted in 31-50 years age group. All malignant tumours were seen in the cases above 50 years of age. The results corroborated with the various studies done by Tushar K et al. (2005),22 Jha R & Karki S14 and Jindal U.8 Among the histomorphological types of epithelial tumors, Seroustumours (73.6%) were the most common, followed by Mucinous tumours (16.8%), Seromucinoustumours (8.42%) and least common were endometrioid tumours (1.05%). Similar results were seen by Krishna M & Maurya G12 andSarkar R.23 Serous cystadenoma was the commonest ET (53.3%) followed by Mucinous cystadenoma (21.7%) and serous cyst adenocarcinoma (8.4%). Similar results were reported by various authors in their studies.

In the present study, majority of the  germ cell tumours were benign (81.8%) and include mature cystic teratoma and Struma ovarii. These results were closer to the findings of Agrawal P et al.24 and Verma K & Bhatia A25 with 77.7% and 83.5% respectively. Malignant tumours include Dysgerminoma and Embryonal carcinoma. Germ cell tumours showed maximum cases below 35 years of age, with a gradual decline in 31-40 years age group and they were found to be uncommon after the age of 60 years. These findings were consistent with the studies of Jha R & Karki S14 and Agrawal P et al.24

In this study, majority of the sex cord stromal tumours were benign (57.1%) and the results were not similar to the findings of Rao KN et al.26 (55.6%) and were lower when compared to the findings of Jindal U8 (75%). On the contrary study of Badge SAEt al.13 (66.7%) showed mostly benign sex cord stromal tumours against malignant. The age range of sex cord stromal  tumours in our study was 41-70 years whereas Bhagyalakshmi A Et al.10 recorded age range of 21-70 years in their study. Adult granulosa cell tumour which is potentially malignant tumour occurred in 2.4% of all ovarian tumours. The frequency was consistent with the findings of Gupta SC et al.27 and Pilli GS et al.18 who recorded it as 4.4% and 3.54% respectively.

Our study showed one case of secondary tumours and constituted 0.8% of all ovarian tumours. This was lower when compared to the findings of Badge SA Et al.13  (10.9%) but was almost similar to the studies of Gupta N et al.28 (2%), Jha R & Karki S14 (2.4%) and Bhagyalakshmi A Et al.10 (1.5%). The former when compared with the studies of Misra RK et al.20 (1.07%), Prabhakar BR and Maingi K19 (1.57%) and Couto F et al.15 (1.46%) showed a good correlation.

 Conclusion

Ovarian tumour is a silent menace that presents as a tremendous clinical challenge to gynaecologist, medical oncologist and radiotherapists. Emergence of borderline tumours with prognostic difference from the benign and malignant counterparts, has added a wing to research in the field of ovarian tumours. Accurate diagnosis of ovarian tumours can be rendered in almost all of cases by correlating the clinical presentation, radiographic appearance and histomorphological features, which remains the gold standard. Even then, in the modern era by the application of specialised methods like special stains, IHC markers, ultrastructural studies and cytogenetics, there is a vast scope for reaching specific & reliable diagnosis of difficult dilemmatic cases of ovarian tumours, by which the therapeutic and prognostic implications could be modified.

References

  1. Pradhan A, Sinha AK, Upreti D. Histopathological patterns of ovarian tumors at BPKIHS. Health Renaissance. 2012; 10(2):87-97.
  2. Malli M, Vyash B, Gupta S, Desai H. A Histological study of ovarian tumors in different age groups.Int J Med Sci Public Health. 2014; 3(3):338-341.
  3. Vaddatti T, Reddy ES, Vahini G. Study of morphological patterns of ovarian neoplasms. IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences. 2013; 10(6):11-16.
  4. Ellenson LH, Piorg EC. The Female Genital Tract.Kumar V, Abbas AK, Aster JC. In: Robbins and Cotran Pathological Basis of Diseases. 9th edn: Elseiver, 2014; 2:1022-1034.
  5. Prat J, Morice P. Secondary tumours of ovary. Tavassoli FA, Devilee P. In: WHO classifications of tumours: Pathology of the breast and female genital organs. 3th edn. IARC Press: Lycon, 2003, 193.
  6. Rosai J. Female reproductive system- Ovary. In: Rosai and Ackerman’s Surgical Pathology. 10th edn. Missouri: Elsevier, 2012; 2:1553-1609.
  7. Sohail I, Hayat Z, Saeed S. A comparative analysis of frequency and patterns of ovarian tumours at a tertiary care hospital between two different study periods 2002-2009. J Postgrad Med Inst. 2012; 26(2):196-200.
  8. Jindal U. Pattern of ovarian neoplasm in rural population: A five year study from tertiary care hospital. Journal of evolution of medical and dental sciences. 2014; 3(8):2033-2039.
  9. Mondal SK, Banyopadhya R, Nag DR, Roychowdhury S, Mondal PK, Sinha SK. Et al. Histologic pattern, bilaterality and clinical evaluation of 957 ovarian neoplasms: A 10-year study in a tertiary hospital of eastern India. J Can Res Ther. 2011; 7(4):433-437.
  10. Bhagyalakshmi A, Sreelekha A, Sridevi S, Chandralekha J, Parvathi G, Vekatalakshmi A. Et al. Prospective study of histopathological patterns of ovarian tumours in a tertiary care centre. Int J Res Med Sci. 2014; 2(2):448-456.
  11. Singh S, Saxena V, Khatri SL, Gupta S, Garewal J, Dubey K. Et al. Histopathological evaluation of ovarian tumors. Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research. 2016; 2(4):435-439.
  12. Krsihna M, Maurya G. Pattern of ovarian tumors and their age distribution in Kangra Valley Himachal Pradesh. Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences. 2015; 4(61):10602-10608.
  13. Badge SA, Gosavi AV, Sulhyan KR. Histopathological study of ovarian tumors. Indian Medical Gazette, 2013; 345-351.
  14. Jha R, Karki S. Histological pattern of ovarian tumors and their age distribution. Nepal Med Coll J. 2008; 10(2):81-85.
  15. Couto F, Naolkarni NS, Rebello MJ. Ovarian tumours in Goa: A clinic pathological study of ovarian tumours. J ObstetGynaecol of India. 1993; 43(3):408-12.
  16. Swamy GG, Saryanarayan N. Clinico pathological analysis of ovarian tumors – A study on five years samples. Nepal Med Coll J. 2010; 12(4):221-223.
  17. Kuladeepa AVK, Muddegowda PH, Lingegowda JB, Doddikoppad MM, Basavaraja PK, Hiremath SS Et al. Histomorphological study of 134 primary ovarian tumors.Adv Lab Med Int. 2011; 1(4):69- 82.
  18. Pilli GS, Suneeta KP, Dhaded AV, Yenni VV. Ovarian tumours: A study of 282 cases. J Indian Med Assoc, 2002; 100:423-424.
  19. Prabhakar BR, Maingi K. Ovarian tumors – prevalence in Punjab. Indian J PatholMicrobiol, 1989; 32:276-81.
  20. Misra RK, Sharma SP, Gupta V, Gaur R, Mishra SD. International Journal of Medical and Health Research ,Pattern of ovarian neoplasm in eastern UP. J ObstetGnecol. 1991; 41(2):242-6.
  21. Sharma I, Sarma U, Dutta UC. Pathology of ovarian tumour- A hospital based study. International Journal of Medical science and Clinical Invention. 2014; 1(6):284-286.
  22. Tushar K, Asaranti K, C MP. Intra-operative cytology of ovarian tumours.J ObstetGynecol India. 2005; 55(4):345-349.
  23. Sarkar R. Ovarian neoplasms – A 14 years study. J ObstetGynecol India, 1996; 46:156-160.
  24. Agrawal P, Kulkarni DG, Chakrabati PR, Chourasia S, Dixit M, Gupta K Et al. Clinico pathological spectrum of ovarian tumors: a 5 year experience in a tertiary health care center. Journal of Basic and Clinical Reproductive Sciences. 2015; 4(2):90-96.
  25. Verma K, Bhatia A. Ovarian neoplasms: A study of 403 tumors. J ObstGynecol India.1981; 31:406-411.
  26. Rao KN, Koteswari M, Devi CP, Sailabala G, Katta R. Morphological study of ovarian tumors with special reference to germ cell tumors. IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences. 2015; 14(1):55-60.
  27. Gupta SC, Singh PA, Mehrotra TN, Agarwal R, A clinic pathological study of ovarian tumours: Indian J PatholMicrobiol. 1986; 29(4):354-62.

28. Gupta N, Bisht D, Agarwal AK, Sharma VK. Retrospective and prospective study of ovarian tumours and tumour-like lesions.Indian J PatholMicrobiol. 2007; 50(3):525-7.

Posted on

jhc-2019-jul-v-3-n-2-ultrasound-ahmed-nu

Ultrasound Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology and Histopathology in the Diagnosis of Ovarian Mass

 *Ahmed NU,1 Saha NK,2 Bhowmik DK,3 Mazumder AR,4 Shariar S,5 Hira AD,6 Keya SA7

  1. *Dr. Nasir Uddin Ahmed, Assistant Professor, Department of Pathology, Faridpur Medical College. nasirdr32@yahoo.com
  2. Naba Kumar Saha, Professor, Department of Pathology, Sylhet MAG Osmani Medical College.
  3. Dilip Kumar Bhowmik, Professor, Department of Gynaecology & Obstetrics, Sylhet MAG Osmani Medical College.
  4. Ashikur Rahman Mazumder, Professor, Department of Radiology & Imaging, Sylhet MAG Osmani Medical College.
  5. Sakib Shariar, Pathologist, Railway General Hospital, Dhaka.
  6. Ananda Dyuti Hira, Pathologist, Department of Pathology, Khulna Medical College.
  7. Shamim Ara Keya, Lecturer, Department of Pathology, Shaheed Suhrawardy Medical College, Dhaka.

* For correspondence

 Abstract

Objective: The study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration cytology in the diagnosis of ovarian mass and to correlate with histopathological diagnosis.
Methods: This  cross sectional study was done on 60 patients. FNA smears were prepared before surgical procedure. Histopathological examination was done by collection of surgical specimens. Cytomorphological findings were noted and correlated with histomorphological diagnoses.
Results: The age of patients ranged from 16 to 70 years with a mean of 36 years. Study showed 59 (98.33%) were unilateral and 1(1.67%) tumor was bilateral. Among 60 histopathologically diagnosed cases, 7(11.67%) were non-neoplastic cysts, 40 (66.67%) were benign tumors, 2(3.33%) were borderline tumors, 10(16.67%) were malignant tumors and 1 (1.66 %) was inflammatory lesion. All hemorrhagic cysts and cystic lesions were considered benign because they were cytologically negative for malignancy. Concordant diagnosis between cytology and histopathology was in 57 (95%) cases.
Conclusion: USG guided FNAC showed a relatively safe, quick, cost effective and patient compliant procedure with minimal morbidity.

[Journal of Histopathology and Cytopathology, 2019 Jul; 3 (2):117-124]

 Key words: Ultrasound Guidance, Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology, Histopathology, Ovarian Mass.

 Introduction

Tumors of the ovary are incredibly varied. This multiplicity is due to the presence of three cell types in the normal ovary: the multipotent surface (coelomic) epithelium, the totipotent germ cells, and the sex cord–stromal cells, each of which gives rise to a number of different tumors.1 The clinicopathological evaluation of ovarian masses is a challenging field. Difficulty in gaining access to the tumor site is itself a major obstacle and the wide spectrum of lesions present an enigmatic picture to the pathologist. Although histopathology remains the gold standard, in recent times image guided aspiration is being increasingly used as a rapid, inexpensive and efficient method for the pre-surgical diagnosis of ovarian masses as well as planning and evaluation of treatment.2 Historically, gynaecologists are hesitant to aspirate ovarian masses in view of the possibility of seeding of an early stage ovarian cancer. The magnitude of risk of such a procedure is unknown and not substantiated by convincing evidence. It is rather overestimated and has not been pathologically confirmed.3

 However, a lot of studies have clearly documented that risk of tumor spreading by needle tract is negligible in comparison to the potential benefits of this simple, quick and effective modality of diagnosis.4 With sonographic support, any structure visualized radiologically can usually be reached precisely in any desired plane, thus increasing the cytological yield. Nevertheless, as with any technique, image-guided FNAC has its short comings; false-negative results are usually due to failure of the needle to enter the mass and failure to sample representative areas.5 In the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian masses, acellular fluid should not be considered non-diagnostic, because it represents benign cysts in a majority of the cases. Literature search failed to trace any study to see the effectiveness of USG guided FNAC in comparison with histopathology in the diagnosis of ovarian masses in our country. With this background, the study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration cytology in the diagnosis of ovarian mass and to correlate with histopathological diagnosis.

 Methods

The cross sectional study was carried out in the Department of Pathology, Sylhet MAG Osmani Medical College, Sylhet in collaboration with the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and Department of Radiology and Imaging, Sylhet MAG Osmani Medical College Hospital, Sylhet from 1st July 2014 to 30th June 2015. All patients with ovarian masses attended the inpatient department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology were considered as the target population and those who fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria were considered as study population. Patient of all ages with ovarian mass were included in this study and patients with hemorrhagic diathesis, those who refused to undergo  USG guided FNAC and surgery, diagnosed cases under treatment and ovarian mass with pregnancy were excluded from this study. Aspirations were done by expert radiologist in radiology and imaging department. The tumors were located by USG and needle was inserted into the lesion without negative pressure. The content of the needle was expelled on to a glass slide and then allowed the aspirated material to spread by gently pulling apart two slides in opposite direction. The smeared slides were promptly dropped in 95% ethyl alcohol for fixation and kept for at least 30 minutes. This smears were then stained according to Papanicolaou method. The cytopathological examination of the stained slides was carried out on the same day or following day. Surgical specimens were collected from all patients in whom USG guided FNAC were done. All the specimens were preserved in 10% formalin. Routine tissue processing with paraffin impregnation was done and stained with hematoxylin and eosin. The diagnoses of ovarian tumors were done according to the cytopathological and histopathological findings and then cytopathological diagnoses were compared with the histopathological diagnoses.

After meticulous checking, all the relevant collected data were compiled first on a master table. Then the data were organized by using scientific calculator and standard computer based statistical software SPSS-21. Percentages were calculated to find out the proportion of the findings. The results were presented in tables, graphs and diagrams. The efficacy of USG guided FNA cytology for the diagnosis of ovarian mass was determined by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, negative predictive values and accuracy.

 Results

Total 62 cases were selected considering inclusion and exclusion criteria. Tissue for histopathological examination was available in 60 cases for comparison with cytopathological diagnosis. The age of patients ranged from 16 to 70 years with a mean of 36 years. Highest frequency 18 (29.03%) was found in 21- 30 age group (Table-I).

Categorization of neoplastic ovarian masses according to cell of origin

 Of the 60 histopathologically diagnosed cases, benign, borderline and malignant tumors were 40, 2 and 10 respectively. Among the benign tumors, surface epithelial tumors, germ cell tumors and sex cord-stromal tumor were 30, 9 and 1 respectively. All the malignant and borderline tumors were surface epithelial in origin. Table II shows categorization of neoplastic ovarian masses according to cell of origin.

All the smears obtained from USG guided FNA of ovarian masses were satisfactory for cytological evaluation and cytological diagnosis was made in most of the smears. Among 62 cases, 31(50%) were diagnosed as benign tumors, 7 (11.29%) were borderline tumors, 4 (6.45%) were malignant tumors, 1(1.61%) was inflammatory lesion and 19 (30.65%) were benign cystic lesions. Cytopathological diagnoses of ovarian masses are shown in Table III.

 Histopathological diagnoses of ovarian masses

Among 60 histopathologically diagnosed cases, 7(11.67%) were non-neoplastic cysts, 40 (66.67%) were benign tumors, 2(3.33%) were borderline tumors,10(16.67%) were malignant tumors and 1 (1.66 %) was inflammatory lesion.  Histopathological diagnoses of ovarian masses are shown in Table IV.  

Histopathological examination of 60 ovarian masses was performed and comparison between cytological and histopathological diagnoses of ovarian masses is shown in Table V.

Discussion

In present study, age of the patients ranged from 16 to 70 years. The maximum number of cases 18 (29.03%) were seen in third decade which is  similar to the studies done by Sengupta et al & Agarwal et al.4,6 Ellenson and Pirog found maximum number of cases in  third & fourth decades.7  Among the 40 benign tumors, 39 (97.50%) cases were found unilateral and 1 (2.50%) case was bilateral. All the malignant, borderline and non-neoplastic lesions were found unilateral in this study. Ray S  reported that 76.56% of non-neoplastic lesions and benign tumors were unilateral and 23.44% were bilateral, 35.71% malignant tumors were unilateral and 64.29% malignant tumors were bilateral.8 This discrepancy is probably due to small sample size in the current study. On gross evaluation of the 60 ovarian masses, 46 (76.67%) were cystic, 2(3.33%) were solid and 12 (20%) were partly solid and partly cystic (mixed). Ray S  reported 64 benign tumors, of which 51(79.69%) were cystic, 7(10.94%) were solid and 6(9.37%) were mixed. Of the 14 malignant tumors, 2(14.28%) were cystic, 7(50%) were solid and 5(35.72%) were mixed in consistancy.8 These findings are  almost similar to the findings of this study. In the present study, among the 52 neoplastic ovarian masses, 42 (80.77%) were surface epithelial, 9 (17.30%) were germ cell and 1(1.93%) was sex- cord stromal origin. Out of 40 benign tumors, 30(75%) were surface epithelial, 9(22.5%) were germ cell and 1(2.5%) was sex- cord stromal origin. All borderline and malignant tumors were found surface epithelial in origin. Similar findings were found in study by Tushar, Asaranti and Mohapatra.9 They showed out of67 ovarian tumors, 53(79.10%) were surface epithelial, 11(16.41%) were germ cell, 1(1.50%) was sex-cord stromal origin and 2 (2.98%) cases were metastatic tumors. In the present study, out of 62 USG guided FNA of ovarian masses, 31(50%) were benign tumors, 7(11.29%) were borderline tumors, 4(6.45%) were malignant tumors, 1(1.61%) was inflammatory lesion and 19(30.65%) were benign cystic lesions.

Agarwal et al. reported 110 USG guided FNA diagnoses of ovarian masses. Out of 110 ovarian masses, 17 (15.50%) were non-neoplastic, 50 (45.5%) were benign and 43 (39%) were malignant tumors.6 In the present study, cytologically mucinous cystadenoma was the most common benign tumor accounting for 12 (19.35%) and mucinous cystadenocarcinoma was the most common malignant tumor accounting for 2(3.23%). Most of the internationally published journal shows, cytologically most common benign tumor is serous cystadenoma and most common malignant tumor is serous cystadenocarcinoma.3,5,6,10 The findings of present study differ from the findings of internationally published journal which may be due to small sample size. If large sample size was taken, the findings of our study might coincide with the findings of international journals. In histopathological diagnosis of 60 cases, 7(11.67%) were non-neoplastic cysts, 40 (66.67%) were benign tumors, 2(3.33%) were borderline tumors, 10(16.67%) were malignant tumors and 1 (1.66 %) was inflammatory lesion. Similar findings were found in study of 77 cases by Ray et al.3  Out of 77 cases, 43 (55.84%) were benign, 22 (28.57%) were malignant and 12 (15.59%) were non-neoplastic lesions. In the present study, histopathologically most common benign tumor was serous cystadenoma accounting for 16 (26.66%) and most common malignant tumor was mucinous cystadenocarcinoma accounting for 6(10%). Agarwal et al. reported that the most common benign tumor was serous cystadenoma accounting for 17 (24.63%) and most common malignant tumor was serous cystadenocarcinoma accounting 10 (14.50%).6 These findings are partially consistent with the current study. Among the 31 cytologically diagnosed benign tumors, 29 cases were diagnosed correctly in histopathology and 2 cases were diagnosed as malignant tumor. Cytologically diagnosed 4 malignant tumors were also diagnosed as malignant in histopathology. In cytologically diagnosed 7 borderline tumors, histopathologically 04 were malignant, 2 were borderline and 1 was benign tumor. One inflammatory lesion diagnosed correctly both in cytology and histopathology. All 17 benign cystic lesions diagnosed cytologically, were also benign in histopathology. Concordant diagnosis between cytology and histopathology was in 57 (95%) cases.

 Conclusion

USG guided FNAC is a relatively safe, quick, cost effective and patient compliant procedure with minimal morbidity and fair diagnostic accuracy. In the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian masses, acellular fluid should not be considered non-diagnostic, because it represents benign cysts in a majority of the cases. False negative results are due to paucicellularity and secondary degenerative changes of epithelial cells. Most of the hospitals in our country are not equiped with frozen section facilities.  USG guided FNAC has particular value as a preoperative diagnostic procedure where frozen section facilities are not available. USG guided FNAC in the diagnosis of ovarian masses can be practised in any centre where the help of sonologist and cytopathologist is available.

 References

  1. Sattar HA. Female Genital System and Breast. In: Kumar V, Abbas AK, and Aster JC, eds. Robbins Basic Pathology, 9th ed. Philadelphia, USA: Elsevier Saunders 2013: pp.681-714.
  2. Afzal S, Ansari H, Ansari M, Maheshwari V, Mehdi G. Image- guided fine-needle aspiration cytology of ovarian tumors: An assesment of diagnostic efficacy. Journal of Cytology 2010; 27(3): 91-95.
  3. Ray S, Gangopadhyay M, Bandyopadhyay A, Majumdar K, Chaudhury N. USG guided FNAC of ovarian mass lesions: A cyto-histopathological correlation, with emphasis on its role in pre-operative management guidelines. Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association 2014; 15: 6-12.
  4. Sengupta S, Mondal R, Bose K, Ray R, Jana S, Deoghoria D. Evaluation of role of ultra sound guided fine needle aspiration cytology for diagnosis of ovarian lesions with particular references to diagnostic pitfalls. Bangladesh Journal of Medical Science 2014; 13(2):158-162.
  5. Goel S, Agarwal D, Goel N, Naim M, Khan T, Ekrammulah. Ultrasound guided fine-needle aspiration cytology in ovarian neoplasms: An assesment of diagnostic accuracy and efficacy and role in clinical management. The Internet Journal of Pathology 2010; 11(2): 1-10.
  6. Agarwal N, Garg S, Aggarwal N, Santwani PM. Ovarian Neoplasm: Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration cytology with histopathological correlation. IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences 2014; 13(7): 24-28.
  7. Ellenson LH, Pirog EC. The Female Genital Tract, In: Kumar V, Abbas AK, Fausto N, Aster, JC, eds. Robbins and Cotran Pathologic Basis of Disease, Philadelphia, USA: Elsevier Saunders 2010: pp.1039 -1052.
  8. Ray S. The role of imprint cytology in the diagnosis of ovarian lessions [ M. Phil thesis]. Sylhet MAG Osmani Medical College 2008,
  9. Tushar K, Asaranti K, Mohapatra PC. Intra-operative cytology of ovarian tumors. The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of India 2005; 55(4): 345-349.
  10. Khan N, Afroz N, Aqil B, Khan T, Ahmad I. Neoplastic and non-neoplastic ovarian masses: Diagnosis on cytology. Journal of Cytology 2009; 26(4):129-133.
Posted on

jhc-2019-jul-v-3-n-2-concurrent-sharmin-s

Concurrent Core Needle Biopsy with Fine Needle Aspiration Biopsy in The Diagnosis of Palpable and Clinically Suspicious Breast Lesions

 *Sharmin S,1 Dewan MR,2 Jinnah SA,3 Sharmin R,4 Runa NJ,5 Ambiya AS,6 Rahman N,7 Afrin SS,8 Hussain M9

 

  1. *Dr. Shegufta Sharmin, Assistant Professor, Department of Pathology, US Bangla Medical College, Dhaka. sheguftasharmin1982@gmail.com
  2. Md. Rezaul Karim Dewan, Professor & Head, Department of Pathology, Dhaka Medical College, Dhaka.
  3. Shahed Ali Jinnah, Associate Professor, Department of Pathology, Dhaka Medical College, Dhaka.
  4. Rumana Sharmin, Lecturer, Department of Pathology, Dhaka Medical College, Dhaka.
  5. Nusrat Jahan Runa, Assistant Professor, Department of Pathology, Dhaka Central Inrernational Medical College, Dhaka.
  6. Ahmed Shahed e Ambiya, Resident Medical Officer, Department of Medicine, Holy Family Red Crescent Medical College Hospital, Dhaka.
  7. Najibur Rahman, Assistant Professor (Rtd), Department of Pathology, Dhaka Medical College Hospital, Dhaka.
  8. Syeda Sadia Afrin, Resident, Department of Pathology, Dhaka Medical College Hospital, Dhaka.
  9. Maleeha Hussain, Professor of Pathology Department, Dhaka Medical College Hospital, Dhaka.

 *For correspondence

Abstract

Background: Breast lump is one of the most common surgical problem in female patients. Though excision biopsy of palpable breast lump is considered to be the gold standard method for diagnosis, there should be an improved and definitive method for establishing an accurate diagnosis of breast masses prior to surgery.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of concurrent fine needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) and core needle biopsy (CNB) in cases of suspicious breast lesions and to study the discordance between them.
Methods: This descriptive cross sectional study included 72 female patients with breast lumps, presented to Dhaka Medical College Hospital over a period of two years and subsequently underwent concurrent FNAB and CNB in the same sitting. The results were then compared with final histopathological findings and the correlations between FNAB and CNB were determined.
Results: Out of 72 cases included in the study, histopathological diagnosis was available in 42 cases. There were four false negative cases in FNAB (14.28%) and two false negative cases (7.14%) in CNB.  The false negative rate in the combined approach was 3.57% which is lower than the rate in individual tests. The sensitivity of combined approach was 96.5%, where FNAB and CNB had 85.71% and 92.85% respectively. The specificity and positive predictive value of both FNAB and CNB were individually 100%, so the concurrent result was also the same. The diagnostic accuracy of combined FNAB and CNB was higher than individual results, which was statistically significant (p<0.05).
Conclusion: Concurrent FNAB and CNB can provide accurate preoperative diagnosis of breast lesions and provide important information for appropriate treatment. Identification of discordant results and, therefore, careful correlation can reduce false negative rate.

[Journal of Histopathology and Cytopathology, 2019 Jul; 3 (2):107-116]

 Key Words: Breast lesions, FNAB, CNB, Histopathology

Introduction

Breast cancer is the second most common cancer in the world and the most frequent cancer among women with an estimated 1.67 million new cancer cases diagnosed in developing countries in 2012.1 Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in women in the less developed regions (324,000 deaths, 14.3% of total) and the second cause of cancer death in the more developed countries  (198,000 deaths, 15.4%) after lung cancer.2 According to the Globocan estimate, more than half of the 1.67 million new breast cancer cases were diagnosed in developing countries in 2012 which is about 52.9%, whereas the corresponding figure for 1980 was only 35%.3,4 In Bangladesh, the number of new cases of breast cancer in the year 2008 was 17,781.5

Breast cancer usually presents with a palpable breast lump. Most breast lumps are benign and of no serious consequence. Fine needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) and core needle biopsy (CNB) are both used in the evaluation of breast lesions and play an important role in the management.6 Both have their specific advantages and limitations. Recent studies have shown the high accuracy and cost effectiveness of FNAB to identify cancer in patients with palpable breast lump.7

FNAB is often used as a first priority investigation in patients with breast lump, but this technique is highly dependent on the skill and expertise of the aspirator.8 FNAB cannot confirm the presence of tumor invasion and therefore cannot be used to differentiate between invasive and in situ neoplasia. In addition, low grade breast lesions, such as atypical ductal hyperplasia, ductal carcinoma in situ and tubular carcinoma cannot be accurately diagnosed using this modality alone. Therefore, erroneous diagnosis can occur due to sampling error or due to misinterpretation.

Tru cut biopsy, also known as core needle biopsy (CNB) is now one of the most useful means of obtaining histopathological diagnosis.9 Besides, core biopsy allows the discrimination between in situ and invasive lesions and is a more accurate method to distinguish between invasive ductal and invasive lobular carcinoma.9 A well sampled CNB specimen usually has greater diagnostic efficacy and provides more tissue for ancillary studies.10 However, CNB still has some pitfalls.11 In some cases, even with image guidance, CNB can miss the lesion and yield inadequate material.12 During the procedure, blood vessels may be injured by large bore needles; in such cases the invasive biopsy procedure will only yield clotted blood on repeated puncture.13 In these instances, core biopsies cannot produce adequate samples which in turn will cause a delay in the histological interpretation.

If FNAB and CNB are used concurrently in cases of suspicious breast lesions, the sensitivity and specificity may be better than either alone.

This study was aimed to find out the diagnostic accuracy of concurrent CNB and FNAB of palpable and clinically suspicious breast lesions.

 Methods

The present cross sectional study was carried out in the Department of Pathology, Dhaka Medical College over a period of two years from January 2015 to December 2016. Female patients of any age group with clinically suspicious and palpable breast lumps who were advised for FNAB or CNB were enrolled and were subjected to concurrent FNAB and CNB in the same sitting with their informed written consent.

With proper aseptic measures, fine needle aspiration was done using a 5 cc or 10 cc disposable syringe for each puncture and for each patient and two to six smears were prepared in glass slides for each patient according to need.  The core needle biopsy was performed by an automated biopsy device equipped with a 14 gauge needle having a sample notch of 15 mm in length. Samples were obtained from different areas of the lesion, usually from the center and close to the borders at the 3, 6, 9 and 12 O’clock positions and were placed in a vial containing 10%  neutral buffered formalin. For each CNB procedure, the number of biopsies taken was recorded. The outcomes of FNAB and CNB were reported using the standard National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) criteria.

In this study, histopathological examination of mastectomy or lumpectomy or excisional biopsy was considered as gold standard. Statistical analysis of the results was obtained by window based computer software devised with Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS).

 Results

A total 72 cases were included in the study in whom FNAB and CNB were performed, and subsequently lumpectomy or mastectomy specimen were available in 42 cases. Histopathological diagnosis was the gold standard of the study. Individual and combined FNAB and CNB were compared and validity test results were calculated. It was observed that the majority (44.4%) of patients belonged to the age group of 31-40 years. The mean age was found 40.94±7.9 years with range from 28 to 62 years (Table I).


More than one third (43%) of the samples were cytologically diagnosed as malignant, 07(9.72%)were diagnosed as suspicious and 09(12.5%) showed atypia. 25(34.72%) cases were cytologically diagnosed as benign(Table II). On the other hand in CNB, 34 (47.2%) cases were found to be malignant cases, 26(36.11) benign , 06 suspicious of malignancy, 05(6.94%) of uncertain malignant potential and 01 (1.38%) unsatisfactory tissue (Table III). Finally, after histopathology of the 42 cases, where surgical biopsy were available, 28(66.66%) cases were confirmed as malignant and 14(33.33%) cases were found to have benign lesions. It was observed that 25(59.52%) patients with duct cell carcinoma was the most frequent diagnosis, followed by 2(4.8%) papillary carcinoma and 1(2.3%) lobular carcinoma (Table IV)

Of the 20 malignant cases and 4 suspicious cases diagnosed by FNAB, all proved to be malignant by histopathology. Among the 05 cases presented with atypia in FNAB, 4 were diagnosed histologically as malignant and 1 was benign. None of the benign cases diagnosed by FNAB was otherwise in histology (Table V).Of the 19 patients diagnosed as malignancy by CNB, 17(79.2%) were diagnosed as duct cell carcinoma, 01(100.0%) as lobular carcinoma and 01(100.0%) as papillary carcinoma by histopathology (Table VI). All 07 suspicious cases in CNB were histologically diagnosed as malignancy and the 04 cases presented with atypia in CNB, ultimately diagnosed as benign in 03 cases and malignant in 01 case (Table VI).

ith concurrent FNAB and CNB, true positive cases were 27 in number, true negative cases were 14 and false negative cases was 1 in number. There were no false positive case (Table VII). In the present study, the sensitivity of FNAB is 85.71%, specificity 100%, PPV (positive predictive value) 100%, NPV (negative predictive value) 77.77% and accuracy 90.47%. In comparison, the sensitivity of CNB is 92.85%, specificity 100%, PPV (positive predictive value) 100%, NPV (negative predictive value) 87.5% and accuracy 95.23%. When both FNAB and CNB are combined, the sensitivity is 96.05%, specificity 100%, PPV (positive predictive value) 100%, NPV (negative predictive value) 93.33% and accuracy 97.61% (Table VIII). So the combined results are superior to FNAB or CNB alone (p<0.05) statistically significant


Discussion
Fine needle aspiration biopsy and core needle biopsy currently are the most widely used methods for pathological diagnosis of breast lumps. They have their specific advantages and limitations. To minimize the limitations of individual procedure, in the current study simultaneous FNAB and CNB was used for the diagnosis of clinically suspicious and palpable breast lumps. Results of the combined approach were compared with FNAB and CNB separately.

With a population of over 163 million, Bangladesh is one of the most densely populated countries in the world.14 Not much information on breast cancer in Bangladesh is available as there is no population based cancer registry in our country. However, the only hospital based cancer registry at the National Institute of Cancer Research and Hospital tracks new cancer cases systematically in this country. According to NICRH report, 5255 breast cancer cases were diagnosed during the period of 2005-2010.15,16 The data of NICRH states that breast cancer has overtaken cervical cancer as the most common female cancer in Bangladesh. (Breast cancer cases 26% and cervical cancer cases 21.1% during the period 2008-2010: NICRH, Cancer registry report).16

In the present study, a total of 72 cases of clinically suspicious and palpable breast lumps were included. FNAB and CNB were done in all of them but surgical biopsy was available in 42 cases only. Of these 42 cases, 28 were malignant and 14 were benign. The firm to hard consistency, irregularity and larger size of the lumps in these 14 benign cases made them to be clinically suspicious. Histopathology was the gold standard in this study and the validity test results of FNAB and CNB were evaluated and compared with it.

In this study, among the 48 cancer patients diagnosed either by core needle biopsy or fine needle aspiration biopsy, age ranged from 33 years to 62 years with a mean age of 42.5 years. In this present study, 26(54.16%) cancer patients out of 48 malignant cases were premenopausal and 22(45.83%) cases were postmenopausal.

Fine needle aspiration biopsy is a routine procedure in the diagnosis of breast lesions in our laboratories. It is a relatively rapid, inexpensive, maintains tactile sensitivity and allows multidirectional passes allowing a broader sampling of the lesions and immediate reporting where it is necessary. However, it has some limitations in the assessment of tumor invasion, tumor grade or receptor status. In this perspect, use of core needle biopsy has been shown to be an excellent tool while working with the tissue specimens because it permits the evaluation of both the architectural and cytological patterns and provides adequate material to perform diagnostic ancillary studies.

However, the performance of CNB has a few disadvantages. Missampling can occur, even with image guidance.12 Improper processing of small tissue fragments may lead to tissue distortion and challenge sample adequacy. These technical errors or missampling can lead to false negative results. The study showed that the sensitivity of FNAB was 85.71% in the diagnosis of breast cancer with a false negative rate of 14.28%. The specificity was 100%. This result is similar to other studies done by Mahmood H. Hasssan in Iraq (2014).17 Mohammed Bdour et al (2008) in Pakistan18 and Tiwarie M. in Nepal (2007).19

All four false negative cases in FNAB belonged to proliferative breast disease with atypia group. The false negative results of FNAB were mainly due to underestimation of cellular atypia.

In our study, CNB had a sensitivity of 92.85% and specificity of 100% in the diagnosis of breast cancer. The false negative rate was 7.14%. The results are comparable to others studies done by Mahmood H. Hasssan in Iraq(2014),17 Mohammed Bdour in Pakistan (2008),18 Karimian F. in Iran (2008),9 AD Baildum in UK (1989)19 and Stanley Minkowitz in USA (1986)20 which showed 95.0%, 90.0%, 98.07%, 95.0% and 89.0% sensitivity, respectively .

We found that, there were two false negative cases in CNB. Out of the two cases, one showed cystic change in ultrasonography. The repeated missing of the lesion in core biopsy may be due to this cystic change. . In this case as FNAB could cover much more area, it yielded adequate material from solid area.

Though accuracy of CNB is superior to FNAB,to minimize the limitation, the aim of pathologist should be to diagnose all the breast cancers confidently and not a single case should be missed. With this aim, the concurrent FNAB was done in this study and it showed sensitivity of 96.5%. In this present study, the number of cores taken from each patient was four or above. The combined approach of FNAB and CNB yielded better diagnostic accuracy than FNAB and CNB alone. The sensitivity of combined approach is 96.5%, where FNAB and CNB had 85.71% and 92.85% respectively. The specificity and positive predictive value of both FNAB and CNB are individually 100%, so the concurrent result is also the same. The 100% specificity of FNAB or CNB should not be generalized for all breast lesions in this study, because all the cases in the present study had breast lumps more than 2 cm in size and all were palpable.

The false negative rate in the combined approach was 3.57% which is lower than the rate in individual tests (14.28% in FNAB and 7.14% in CNB). A false negative diagnosis may delay the treatment of breast cancer. The concurrent examination of FNAB and CNB reduced the false negative rate by 50 %(7.14% to 3.57%), in comparison to CNB alone.

Conclusion
It is established that CNB is superior to FNAB regarding sensitivity and specificity. 9,10,11,13 In our country with poor resource setting, guided FNAB and CNB are not always possible. So to increase the sensitivity and to reduce the numbers of false negative cases of CNB, combined approach are helpful.

Reference
1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D and Bray F. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. International journal of cancer, 2015;136(5):359-86.
2. Globocan, IARC 2012 IARC, 2012. Latest world cancer statistics Global cancer burden rises to 14.1 million new cases in 2012: Marked increase in breast cancers must be addressed. http://globocan.iarc.fr.
3. IARC, 2012. Latest world cancer statistics Global cancer burden rises to 14.1 million new cases in 2012: Marked increase in breast cancers must be addressed. http://globocan.iarc.fr.
4. Forouzanfar MH, Foreman KJ, Delossantos AM, Lozano R, Lopez AD, Murray CJ and Naghavi M, Breast and cervical cancer in 187 countries between 1980 and 2010: a systematic analysis. The lancet, 2010; 378(9801):1461-84.
5. IARC, 2008. World cancer report 2008. International Agency for Research on Cancer. http://globocan.iarc.fr/
6. Cochrane RA, Singhal H, Monypenny IJ, Webster DJT, Lyons K and Mansel RE. Evaluation of general practitioner referrals to a specialist breast clinic according to the UK national guidelines. European Journal of Surgical Oncology (EJSO), 1997; 23(3):198-201.
7. Touhid Uddin Rupom, Tamanna Choudhury, Sultana Gulshana Banu. Study of Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology of Breast Lump:Correlation of Cytologically Malignant Cases with their Histological Findings. BSMMU J, 2011;4(2):60-64.
8. Yong WS, Chia KH, Poh WT and Wong CY. A comparison of trucut biopsy with fine needle aspiration cytology in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Singapore medical journal, 1999;40(9):587-89.
9. Karimian F, Aminian A, Hashemi E, Meysamie AP, Mirsharifi R and Alibakhshi A. Value of core needle biopsy as the first diagnostic procedure in the palpable breast masses. Shiraz E Medical Journal, 2008;9(4):188-192.
10. Pieter J, Westenend Ali R, Sever, Hannie JC., Beekman-de Volder et al. A comparison of Aspiration Cytology and Core Needle Biopsy in the evaluation of breast lesions. Cancer cytopathol 2001,93:146-150.
11. Liberman L, Dershaw DD, Rosen PP, Giess CS, Cohen MA, Abramson AF and Hann LE. Stereotaxic core biopsy of breast carcinoma: accuracy at predicting invasion. Radiology, 1995;194(2):379-81.
12. Yao-Lung Kuo, Tsai-Wang Chang. 2010, :Can concurrent core biopsy and fine needle aspiration biopsy improve the false negative rate of sonographically detectable breast lesions? BMC cancer, 2010;10(371):1-7.
13. Berner A, Davidson B, Sigstad E, Risberg B. Fine needle aspiration cytology vs. core biopsy in the diagnosis of breast lesions. Diagnostic cytopathology, 2003;; 29(6):344-8.
14. CIA. The world factbook; 2014.
15. NICRH. Cancer Registry Report National Institute of Cancer Research and Hospital 2005-07; 2009.
16. NIRCH. Cancer Registry Report National Institute of Cancer Research and Hospital 2008-2010; 2013.
17. Mahmood H. Hassan Ahmed R, HizamSafa, M. Al-Obaidi. The role of Tru-cut needle biopsy in the diagnosis of palpable breast masses. J Fac Med Baghdad, 2014;56: 292-295.
18. Mohammed Bdour, Saleh Hourani, WaseemMefleh, Ashraf Shabatat, Samer K.A. Radsheh, et al. Comparision between Fine needle aspiration cytology and Tru-cut biopsy in the diagnosis of breast cancer: Journal of surgery Pakistan international 2008: 13; 19-21.
19. Tiwari M. Role of fine needle aspiration cytology in diagnosis of breast lumps.Kathmundu University Medical Journal, 2007;5:215-17.
20. Baildam AD, Turnbull L, Howell A, Barnes DM and Sellwood RA, 1989. Extended role for needle biopsy in the management of carcinoma of the breast. British Journal of Surgery, 1989;76(6):553-58.
21. Stanley Minkowitz, Robert Moskowitz, Rene A., Khafif Martha N, Tru-cut needle biopsy of the breast and analysis of its specificity and sensitivity. Cancer 1986;15;320-323.