BACKGROUND: To investigate whether ultrasound-guided core-needle biopsy (US-CNB) has more diagnostic value for breast tumors than ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (US-FNAB) and to evaluate their combined use in patients with breast tumors. STUDY DESIGN: US-FNAB was carried out in 233 patients with breast tumors (254 lesions); both US-FNAB and US-CNB (combined biopsy) were performed in 81 of these patients (82 lesions). The diagnosis obtained by US-FNAB and US-CNB was compared with the surgical findings and the diagnostic value of US-CNB and combined biopsy were retrospectively evaluated. RESULTS: The sensitivity of US-FNAB was 86.9%, the specificity was 78.6%, and the accuracy was 84%. In contrast, the sensitivity of US-CNB was 86.2%, the specificity was 95.8%, and the accuracy was 89%. The specificity of US-CNB was significantly higher than that of US-FNAB and the inadequate biopsy rate of US-CNB was significantly lower than that of US-FNAB. For combined biopsy, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were all 100%. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of combined biopsy were significantly higher than those of US-FNAB. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that US-CNB is more useful than US-FNAB, and that a combination of US-CNB and US-FNAB can markedly improve the preoperative diagnosis of breast cancer.
BACKGROUND: To investigate whether ultrasound-guided core-needle biopsy (US-CNB) has more diagnostic value for breast tumors than ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (US-FNAB) and to evaluate their combined use in patients with breast tumors. STUDY DESIGN: US-FNAB was carried out in 233 patients with breast tumors (254 lesions); both US-FNAB and US-CNB (combined biopsy) were performed in 81 of these patients (82 lesions). The diagnosis obtained by US-FNAB and US-CNB was compared with the surgical findings and the diagnostic value of US-CNB and combined biopsy were retrospectively evaluated. RESULTS: The sensitivity of US-FNAB was 86.9%, the specificity was 78.6%, and the accuracy was 84%. In contrast, the sensitivity of US-CNB was 86.2%, the specificity was 95.8%, and the accuracy was 89%. The specificity of US-CNB was significantly higher than that of US-FNAB and the inadequate biopsy rate of US-CNB was significantly lower than that of US-FNAB. For combined biopsy, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were all 100%. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of combined biopsy were significantly higher than those of US-FNAB. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that US-CNB is more useful than US-FNAB, and that a combination of US-CNB and US-FNAB can markedly improve the preoperative diagnosis of breast cancer.
Authors: Anthony G Douglas-Jones; Jemimah L Denson; Adam C Cox; Iwan B Harries; Guy Stevens Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2006-05-26 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Mary F Dillon; Arnold D K Hill; Cecily M Quinn; Ann O'Doherty; Enda W McDermott; Niall O'Higgins Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: M Moschetta; M Telegrafo; D A Carluccio; J P Jablonska; L Rella; Gabriella Serio; M Carrozzo; A A Stabile Ianora; G Angelelli Journal: G Chir Date: 2014 Jul-Aug
Authors: Charlie Zhang; Darrell R Lewis; Paola Nasute; Malcolm Hayes; Linda J Warren; Paula B Gordon Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2012-10-31 Impact factor: 3.909
Authors: Mazen A Juratli; Eric R Siegel; Dmitry A Nedosekin; Mustafa Sarimollaoglu; Azemat Jamshidi-Parsian; Chengzhong Cai; Yulian A Menyaev; James Y Suen; Ekaterina I Galanzha; Vladimir P Zharov Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-09-14 Impact factor: 3.240