BACKGROUND: The ideal method for diagnosis of breast cancer is debatable.
METHODS: The methods of diagnosis of 436 new cases of breast adenocarcinoma presenting from Jan 2005 till Dec 2006 at the University Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC) were examined in this study.
RESULTS: A total of 388 cases presented to the breast unit in UMMC primarily and 48 cases were diagnosed in non-breast units in other hospitals and referred for management. Fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) was the commonest mode of initial diagnosis in 278 cases followed by core needle biopsy and surgical excision. In UMMC, FNAC was the commonest initial method (68.3%) compared to cases diagnosed outside UMMC, where 37.5% of cases were diagnosed by excision. Tumours less than 2cm were more likely to be diagnosed by excision biopsy.
CONCLUSION: The biopsy method used to confirm the diagnosis is influenced by where the patient first presents, and by the size of the tumour.
Although most anatomical pathologists have encountered breast lesions with the composite histological features of fibroadenoma (FA) and fibrocystic change (FC), referred to as fibroadenomatosis or fibroadenomatoid mastopathy (FAM), little is known about its prevalence or clinico-pathological significance. In a retrospective histological review of 400 consecutive breast lesions, among both East and West Malaysians, coded either as FA or FC in the files of the Department of Pathology, University of Malaya, we found 45 (11.3%) cases of FAM. Typically, FAM lesions showed fibroadenomatoid foci in a background of fibrocystic change. The finding of FAM among lesions coded as FC was higher (18.5%) than among FA (4%). The mean age of patients with FAM (32.1 years) was similar to FC (35.1 years) but significantly older than that of FA (26.1 years). The notion that FA and FC are lesions at two ends of a spectrum of growth disorder of breast related to oestrogen-progesterone interplay, and that FAM occupies a position intermediate between the two, may explain its morphological and age patterns, but remains speculative. It is hoped that increasing awareness of this condition will lead to better understanding of breast pathophysiology. Nevertheless, until its biological nature, histogenesis and malignant potential are more clearly understood, defining FAM as a distinct form of breast disease may not be meaningful to patient management.