Radiological–Pathological Concordance of Fibroepithelial Lesions Undergoing Core Needle Biopsy
This retrospective study of 100 women demonstrates that while radiological assessment shows high specificity for identifying phyllodes tumors compared to core needle biopsy, its incomplete sensitivity necessitates multidisciplinary review and further tissue sampling for discordant or indeterminate fibroepithelial breast lesions.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
The human breast is a complex landscape of tissue, and when a lump appears, the first question is always whether it is a harmless growth or something that requires immediate attention. Two common types of lumps, known as fibroepithelial lesions, often look and feel remarkably similar. One is a fibroadenoma, a benign, slow-growing mass that is very common in younger women and usually requires no more than watching it over time. The other is a phyllodes tumor, a rarer growth that can range from benign to dangerous, often requiring surgical removal because it has a tendency to return or, in rare cases, spread. The challenge for doctors is that these two conditions can mimic each other so closely in medical images and even in tiny tissue samples that telling them apart is difficult. Getting the diagnosis wrong can lead to unnecessary surgery for a harmless lump or, worse, a missed opportunity to treat a potentially aggressive tumor early.
To navigate this uncertainty, a team of researchers at the SRM Institute of Science and Technology in Chennai, India, looked back at the medical records of one hundred women who had undergone a specific type of tissue sampling called a core needle biopsy. This procedure involves using a hollow needle to extract small cylinders of tissue from a breast lump, which are then examined under a microscope. The researchers wanted to see how well the pictures taken before the biopsy matched the final diagnosis given by the pathologist. They focused on whether the radiologists, who read the ultrasound and mammogram images, could correctly identify which lumps were fibroadenomas and which were phyllodes tumors, and how often the imaging and the tissue sample agreed with each other.
The study covered a five-year period from 2020 to 2025 and included women aged eighteen and older. The researchers gathered data on the women's ages, the size and shape of their lumps, and the results of their imaging tests, which were categorized using a standard system called BI-RADS that estimates the likelihood of cancer. They then compared these imaging impressions against the actual tissue diagnosis. The results showed that fibroadenomas were by far the most common finding, appearing in ninety of the one hundred women. The remaining ten women were diagnosed with phyllodes tumors; seven of these were benign, and three were of an intermediate type known as borderline, but none were malignant.
When the researchers compared what the images suggested with what the tissue samples revealed, they found a high level of agreement. In eighty-nine percent of the cases, the radiological impression and the biopsy result matched perfectly. However, the study also highlighted where the system faced its limits. When the doctors tried to use the images alone to spot a phyllodes tumor, they were very good at ruling them out if they were not present, but they missed some of the tumors that were actually there. Specifically, the imaging correctly identified phyllodes tumors in seventy percent of the cases where they existed, but it failed to flag three of the ten tumors, classifying them instead as fibroadenomas or as suspicious but not specific.
The analysis revealed that the age of the patient and the specific category assigned to the lump on the imaging scan were significant clues. Phyllodes tumors were found more often in women over the age of forty and were almost exclusively assigned to the higher-risk imaging categories, whereas fibroadenomas were common in younger women and often fell into the lower-risk categories. Interestingly, the physical shape of the lump or the clarity of its edges on the scan did not reliably distinguish between the two types of tumors on their own. A lump could look perfectly smooth and round and still be a fibroadenoma, or look irregular and be a phyllodes tumor.
The researchers concluded that while medical imaging is a powerful tool for sorting out which lumps need a biopsy, it cannot replace the tissue sample itself. The best approach is to treat the image and the biopsy result as partners in a conversation. When the two agree, the diagnosis is secure. When they disagree, or when a lump looks suspicious on an image but the biopsy says it is benign, the medical team must look closer. This might mean taking more tissue or performing surgery to remove the entire lump to be certain. The study reinforces that no single test is perfect, and the safest path for patients involves a careful, combined review of the clinical picture, the images, and the tissue, ensuring that the right treatment is chosen for the right diagnosis.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.