Literature DB >> 11000162

Underestimation of breast cancer with II-gauge vacuum suction biopsy.

L E Philpotts1, C H Lee, L J Horvath, R C Lange, D Carter, I Tocino.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the mammographic and histologic features of cancerous lesions underestimated using 11-gauge vacuum suction biopsy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of 11-gauge vacuum suction biopsy was performed to identify lesions diagnosed as atypical ductal hyperplasia or carcinoma. The histology of the core and surgical specimens was compared. Of 158 cases of cancer, underestimation occurred in 15 (9.5%). The mammographic and histologic features were assessed.
RESULTS: Of 15 underestimated cases, six were atypical ductal hyperplasia that proved to be cancer (5 ductal carcinoma in situ and 1 invasive) and nine were ductal carcinoma in situ that proved to have invasion. The underestimation rate for calcifications was 16.3% (14/86) and for masses was 1.6% (1/64) (p = 0.007). Most (5/6) underestimated atypical ductal hyperplasia cases were reported as "markedly atypical," and four of nine underestimated ductal carcinoma in situ cases were reported as "possible invasion." No significant difference was seen in the number of core specimens obtained or the sizes of the lesions for underestimated cases versus accurately diagnosed cases. The percentage of calcifications retrieved was significantly different (p = 0.017). No underestimations were found among cases in which the entire mammographic lesion was removed at vacuum suction biopsy.
CONCLUSION: The cancer underestimation rate with vacuum suction biopsy was 9.5%. The underestimation rate for calcifications (16.3%) was significantly higher than that for masses (1.6%) (p = 0.007). The percentage of the lesion removed was an important factor in reducing underestimation, as reflected by the percentage of calcifications retrieved and the instances of complete resolution of the lesion seen on mammography.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11000162     DOI: 10.2214/ajr.175.4.1751047

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  15 in total

Review 1.  Stereotactic and ultrasound-guided breast biopsy.

Authors:  T H Helbich; W Matzek; M H Fuchsjäger
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2003-11-13       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Early Breast Cancer Precursor Lesions: Lessons Learned from Molecular and Clinical Studies.

Authors:  Hans-Peter Sinn; Zeinab Elsawaf; Birgit Helmchen; Sebastian Aulmann
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2010-08-23       Impact factor: 2.860

3.  Comparison of the underestimation rate in cases with ductal carcinoma in situ at ultrasound-guided core biopsy: 14-gauge automated core-needle biopsy vs 8- or 11-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy.

Authors:  Y J Suh; M J Kim; E-K Kim; H J Moon; J Y Kwak; H R Koo; J H Yoon
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Vacuum-assisted biopsy diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia and patient management.

Authors:  A Ancona; M Capodieci; A Galiano; F Mangieri; V Lorusso; G Gatta
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2011-01-12       Impact factor: 3.469

5.  Borderline breast lesions: comparison of malignancy underestimation rates with 14-gauge core needle biopsy versus 11-gauge vacuum-assisted device.

Authors:  Viviana Londero; Chiara Zuiani; Anna Linda; Luisa Battigelli; Giovanni Brondani; Massimo Bazzocchi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-01-12       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 6.  Upgrade rates of high-risk breast lesions diagnosed on core needle biopsy: a single-institution experience and literature review.

Authors:  Kelly L Mooney; Lawrence W Bassett; Sophia K Apple
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2016-08-19       Impact factor: 7.842

7.  Randomized controlled trial of stereotactic 11-G vacuum-assisted core biopsy for the diagnosis and management of mammographic microcalcification.

Authors:  Sara M Bundred; Anthony J Maxwell; Julie Morris; Yit Y Lim; Md Janick Harake; Sigrid Whiteside; Nigel J Bundred
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-12-14       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Predictive factors for breast cancer in patients diagnosed atypical ductal hyperplasia at core needle biopsy.

Authors:  Byung Joo Chae; Ahwon Lee; Byung Joo Song; Sang Seol Jung
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2009-10-23       Impact factor: 2.754

9.  Atypical ductal hyperplasia bordering on DCIS on core biopsy is associated with higher risk of upgrade than conventional atypical ductal hyperplasia.

Authors:  Kate R Pawloski; Nicole Christian; Andrea Knezevic; Hannah Y Wen; Kimberly J Van Zee; Monica Morrow; Audree B Tadros
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2020-08-28       Impact factor: 4.872

10.  Vacuum assisted breast biopsy (VAB) excision of subcentimeter microcalcifications as an alternative to open biopsy for atypical ductal hyperplasia.

Authors:  Simone Schiaffino; Elena Massone; Licia Gristina; Piero Fregatti; Giuseppe Rescinito; Alessandro Villa; Daniele Friedman; Massimo Calabrese
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-02-23       Impact factor: 3.039

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.