T Perretta1, C A Pistolese, F Bolacchi, E Cossu, V Fiaschetti, G Simonetti. 1. Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Imaging Molecolare, Radiologia Interventistica e Terapia Radiante, Policlinico Universitario Tor Vergata (PTV), Viale Oxford 81, 00133, Roma, Italy. tommasoperretta@libero.it
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate a handheld vacuum-assisted device for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided breast biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 47 patients, a total of 47 suspicious breast lesions (mean maximum diameter 9 mm) seen with MRI (no suspicious changes on breast ultrasound or mammography) were sampled using a 10-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VAB) device under MRI guidance. Histology of biopsy specimens was compared with final histology after surgery or with follow-up in benign lesions. RESULTS: Technical success was achieved in all biopsies. Histological results from VAB revealed malignancy in 15 lesions (32%), atypical ductal hyperplasia in four lesions (8%) and benign findings in 28 lesions (60%). One of four lesions with atypical ductal hyperplasia was upgraded to ductal carcinoma in situ after surgery. One of seven lesions showing ductal carcinoma was upgraded to invasive carcinoma after surgery. Two lesions diagnosed as infiltrating carcinoma by VAB were not validated at excisional biopsy due to complete removal of the lesion during the procedure. During the follow-up (mean 18 months) of histologically benign lesions, we observed no cases of breast cancer development. Because of morphological changes on follow-up MRI scans, two lesions underwent surgical excision, which confirmed their benign nature. Besides minor complications (massive bleeding, n = 1) requiring no further therapeutic intervention, no complications occurred. CONCLUSIONS: MRI-guided biopsy of breast lesions using a handheld vacuum-assisted device is a safe and effective method for the workup of suspicious lesions seen on breast MRI alone.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate a handheld vacuum-assisted device for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided breast biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 47 patients, a total of 47 suspicious breast lesions (mean maximum diameter 9 mm) seen with MRI (no suspicious changes on breast ultrasound or mammography) were sampled using a 10-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VAB) device under MRI guidance. Histology of biopsy specimens was compared with final histology after surgery or with follow-up in benign lesions. RESULTS: Technical success was achieved in all biopsies. Histological results from VAB revealed malignancy in 15 lesions (32%), atypical ductal hyperplasia in four lesions (8%) and benign findings in 28 lesions (60%). One of four lesions with atypical ductal hyperplasia was upgraded to ductal carcinoma in situ after surgery. One of seven lesions showing ductal carcinoma was upgraded to invasive carcinoma after surgery. Two lesions diagnosed as infiltrating carcinoma by VAB were not validated at excisional biopsy due to complete removal of the lesion during the procedure. During the follow-up (mean 18 months) of histologically benign lesions, we observed no cases of breast cancer development. Because of morphological changes on follow-up MRI scans, two lesions underwent surgical excision, which confirmed their benign nature. Besides minor complications (massive bleeding, n = 1) requiring no further therapeutic intervention, no complications occurred. CONCLUSIONS: MRI-guided biopsy of breast lesions using a handheld vacuum-assisted device is a safe and effective method for the workup of suspicious lesions seen on breast MRI alone.
Authors: L F Smith; R Henry-Tillman; A T Mancino; A Johnson; M Price Jones; K C Westbrook; S Harms; V S Klimberg Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Claudia Perlet; Sylvia H Heywang-Kobrunner; Anke Heinig; Harald Sittek; Jan Casselman; Ingvar Anderson; Patrick Taourel Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-03-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Lorena Gutierrez; Moriel S NessAiver; W Bradford Carter; Mythreyi Bhargavan; Rebecca S Lewis; Olga B Ioffe Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-10-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Laura Liberman; Elizabeth A Morris; D David Dershaw; Cynthia M Thornton; Kimberly J Van Zee; Lee K Tan Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: S G Orel; M D Schnall; C M Powell; M G Hochman; L J Solin; B L Fowble; M H Torosian; E F Rosato Journal: Radiology Date: 1995-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: C A Pistolese; A M Ciarrapico; F Della Gatta; T Perretta; E Cossu; F Bolacchi; E Bonanno; G Simonetti Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2009-05-30 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: M L Luciani; F Pediconi; M Telesca; F Vasselli; V Casali; E Miglio; R Passariello; C Catalano Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2011-02-01 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Sara D Shaylor; Samantha L Heller; Amy N Melsaether; Dipti Gupta; Avani Gupta; James Babb; Linda Moy Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-03-14 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Megan E Speer; Monica L Huang; Basak E Dogan; Beatriz E Adrada; Rosalind P Candelaria; Kenneth R Hess; Palita Hansakul; Wei T Yang; Gaiane M Rauch Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-07-05 Impact factor: 3.039