Histological and biomarker concordance between core needle biopsy and excision specimens in breast carcinoma
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36320/ajb/v18.i1.23214Keywords:
Breast carcinoma; Histology; Estrogen receptor; Ki-67; ESR1Abstract
Core needle biopsy is commonly used to diagnose breast cancer and to assess important tumour markers before surgery. However, the results obtained from biopsy samples do not always match those from the final excision specimen, especially for markers related to tumour proliferation. In this study, we compared histological and biomarker findings between core needle biopsy and excision specimens in fifty patients with breast carcinoma. Estrogen receptor and Ki-67 were assessed by immunohistochemistry, and the expression of ESR1, MKI67, and TOP2A was analysed using real-time PCR. Estrogen receptor results were largely similar between biopsy and excision specimens, and ESR1 gene expression showed no relevant difference between the two sample types. In contrast, Ki-67 results varied considerably, with higher expression of proliferation-related genes seen in excision specimens. These findings suggest that estrogen receptor assessment on biopsy material is reliable, while evaluation of tumour proliferation may be affected by sampling differences. Additional molecular analysis may help in interpreting proliferation markers in routine practice.
Downloads
References
1. Kim, J., et al., Global patterns and trends in breast cancer incidence and mortality across 185 countries. Nature Medicine,2025. 31(4): p. 1154-1162.doi: 10.1038/s41591-025-03502-3
2. Li, H., et al., Relationship of women’s breast nodules with lifestyle, mental health and metabolic characteristics: a large, retrospective, longitudinal cohort study. BMC Public Health,2026.doi: 10.1186/s12889-025-26180-9
3. Pritchett, M. and C. Schirmer, Triple-Needle Brush in the Diagnosis of Peripheral Pulmonary Nodules. CHEST,2014. 146(4): p. 796A.doi: 10.1378/chest.1992469
4. You, K., et al., Comparison of Core Needle Biopsy and Surgical Specimens in Determining Intrinsic Biological Subtypes of Breast Cancer with Immunohistochemistry. J Breast Cancer,2017. 20(3): p. 297-303.doi:
5. Pruss, M., et al., Hormone and HER2-receptor status in breast cancer: determination using sonographically guided core needle biopsy and correlation with excision specimen—a German single institution diagnostic accuracy study. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics,2025. 311(3): p. 881-891.doi: 10.1007/s00404-024-07920-5
6. Damodaran, D., et al., A Prospective Study on Level of Concordance Between Core Needle Biopsy and Surgical Specimen for Assessing Oestrogen Receptor, Progesterone Receptor, and Her2/Neu Receptor Status in Carcinoma Breast and Its Implications on Treatment Decisions. Indian J Surg Oncol,2020. 11(3): p. 446-450.doi: 10.1007/s13193-020-01146-y
7. Shanmugalingam, A., et al., Concordance between core needle biopsy and surgical excision for breast cancer tumor grade and biomarkers. Breast Cancer Res Treat,2022. 193(1): p. 151-159.doi: 10.1007/s10549-022-06548-w
8. Pölcher, M., et al., Concordance of the molecular subtype classification between core needle biopsy and surgical specimen in primary breast cancer. Arch Gynecol Obstet,2021. 304(3): p. 783-790.doi: 10.1007/s00404-021-05996-x
9. Wegscheider, A.-S., et al., Comprehensive and Accurate Molecular Profiling of Breast Cancer through mRNA Expression of ESR1, PGR, ERBB2, MKI67, and a Novel Proliferation Signature. Diagnostics,2024. 14(3): p. 241.doi:
10. Van Steenhoven, J.E.C., et al., Conventional Pathology Versus Gene Signatures for Assessing Luminal A and B Type Breast Cancers: Results of a Prospective Cohort Study. Genes,2018. 9(5): p. 261.doi:
11. Robertson, S., et al., Re-testing of predictive biomarkers on surgical breast cancer specimens is clinically relevant. Breast Cancer Res Treat,2019. 174(3): p. 795-805.doi: 10.1007/s10549-018-05119-2
12. Meattini, I., et al., Impact of molecular subtypes classification concordance between preoperative core needle biopsy and surgical specimen on early breast cancer management: Single-institution experience and review of published literature. Eur J Surg Oncol,2017. 43(4): p. 642-648.doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.10.025
13. Chen, X., et al., Surgery time interval and molecular subtype may influence Ki67 change after core needle biopsy in breast cancer patients. BMC Cancer,2015. 15: p. 822.doi: 10.1186/s12885-015-1853-1
14. Intriago-Baldeón, D.P., et al., Decoding Breast Cancer: Emerging Molecular Biomarkers and Novel Therapeutic Targets for Precision Medicine. International Journal of Molecular Sciences,2026. 27(1): p. 138.doi:
15. Hammond, M.E.H., et al., American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Guideline Recommendations for Immunohistochemical Testing of Estrogen and Progesterone Receptors in Breast Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology,2010. 28(16): p. 2784-2795.doi: 10.1200/jco.2009.25.6529
16. Damodaran, D., et al., A Prospective Study on Level of Concordance Between Core Needle Biopsy and Surgical Specimen for Assessing Oestrogen Receptor, Progesterone Receptor, and Her2/Neu Receptor Status in Carcinoma Breast and Its Implications on Treatment Decisions. Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology,2020. 11(3): p. 446-450.doi: 10.1007/s13193-020-01146-y
17. Dowsett, M., et al., Assessment of Ki67 in Breast Cancer: Recommendations from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute,2011. 103(22): p. 1656-1664.doi: 10.1093/jnci/djr393
18. Zhou, W., et al., Molecular subtypes in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast and their relation to prognosis: a population-based cohort study. BMC Cancer,2013. 13(1): p. 512.doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-13-512
19. Robertson, S., et al., Re-testing of predictive biomarkers on surgical breast cancer specimens is clinically relevant. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment,2019. 174(3): p. 795-805.doi: 10.1007/s10549-018-05119-2
20. Guo, L., et al., Breast cancer heterogeneity and its implication in personalized precision therapy. Exp Hematol Oncol,2023. 12(1): p. 3.doi: 10.1186/s40164-022-00363-1
21. Wirapati, P., et al., Meta-analysis of gene expression profiles in breast cancer: toward a unified understanding of breast cancer subtyping and prognosis signatures. Breast Cancer Res,2008. 10(4): p. R65.doi: 10.1186/bcr2124
22. van Steenhoven, J.E.C., et al., Conventional Pathology Versus Gene Signatures for Assessing Luminal A and B Type Breast Cancers: Results of a Prospective Cohort Study. Genes (Basel),2018. 9(5).doi: 10.3390/genes9050261
23. Cheang, M.C.U., et al., Ki67 Index, HER2 Status, and Prognosis of Patients With Luminal B Breast Cancer. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute,2009. 101(10): p. 736-750.doi: 10.1093/jnci/djp082
24. Meattini, I., et al., Impact of molecular subtypes classification concordance between preoperative core needle biopsy and surgical specimen on early breast cancer management: Single-institution experience and review of published literature. European Journal of Surgical Oncology,2017. 43(4): p. 642-648.doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.10.025
25. Chen, X., et al., Surgery time interval and molecular subtype may influence Ki67 change after core needle biopsy in breast cancer patients. BMC Cancer,2015. 15(1): p. 822.doi: 10.1186/s12885-015-1853-1
26. Perou, C.M., et al., Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature,2000. 406(6797): p. 747-752.doi: 10.1038/35021093
27. Sørlie, T., et al., Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,2001. 98(19): p. 10869-10874.doi: doi:10.1073/pnas.191367098
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ahmed J. Alfahdawi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
which allows users to copy, create extracts, abstracts, and new works from the Article, alter and revise the Article, and make commercial use of the Article (including reuse and/or resale of the Article by commercial entities), provided the user gives appropriate credit (with a link to the formal publication through the relevant DOI), provides a link to the license, indicates if changes were made and the licensor is not represented as endorsing the use made of the work.
