PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 21, 2026Cureus0 citationsOpen Access

Categorization of the Histopathological Diagnosis of Breast Core Needle Biopsies and the Correlation of the Risk of Malignancy With Diagnostic Accuracy

PTPoorni B ThiruvarasuSKSneha Kulkarni

Key Points

  • This research aims to categorize breast core needle biopsies and correlate them with the risk of malignancy and diagnostic accuracy.
  • Assigned biopsy cores to five diagnostic categories (B1-B5) for analysis.
  • Correlated biopsy diagnoses with resection specimens.
  • Calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy.
  • Categorized 66 core needle biopsies, with 65% found to be invasive.
  • Malignant B4 and B5 categories showed sensitivity of 88.8% and specificity of 90.9%.
  • Overall diagnostic accuracy for malignant cases was 89.6%.

Abstract

Introduction: Core needle biopsy (CNB) is used to detect carcinoma of the breast, but it does not always provide a definitive diagnosis. Cases can be categorized into diagnostic categories to facilitate further management decisions. The United Kingdom’s National Health Service Breast Screening Program uses five “B categories” for reporting CNBs of the breast. These categories can help bring uniformity to the reporting of biopsies. Materials and methods: Biopsy cores were assigned to one of the five B categories (B1-B5). Biopsy diagnoses were then correlated with the diagnoses from the resection specimens. Sensitivity (SN), specificity (SP), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy (DA) were calculated. Results: CNBs from 66 cases were collected and categorized as either B1, B2, B3, B4, or B5. Three of the cases (4%) were categorized as B1, eight cases (12%) were categorized as B2, four cases (6%) were categorized as B3, a further four cases (6%) were categorized as B4, and one case (1%) was categorized as B5 carcinoma in situ, while 46 cases (65%) were categorized as invasive. All four of the B3 lesions involved atypical intraductal epithelial proliferations. The SN, SP, PPV, NPV, and DA for the cases categorized as malignant B4 and B5 were 88.8, 90.9, 94.1, 83.3, and 89.6, respectively. Conclusion: More so than reports that are merely descriptive, reports that include B categorization help convey and bring uniformity to pathologists’ perspectives, especially in uncertain cases. Categorization thus facilitates communication between pathologists and clinicians and, therefore, the guidance of patient management.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Thiruvarasu et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69994ba9873532290d01fd97https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.103866
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Columnar Cell Lesions on Breast Needle Biopsies2011 · 47 citations
  2. 2Categorization of Breast Fine Needle Aspirates Using the International Academy of Cytology Yokohama System Along with Assessment of Risk of Malignancy and Diagnostic Accuracy in a Tertiary Care Centre2021 · 26 citations
  3. 3Best Practice No 1792004 · 129 citations
  4. 4Fine-Needle Aspiration Cytology versus Core-Needle Biopsy for Breast Lesions: A Dilemma of Superiority between the Two2021 · 12 citations
  5. 5An overview of B coding of breast core biopsy categorisation and management implications2023 · 9 citations