BACKGROUND: Most women undergoing breast biopsy are found not to have cancer. PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy and harms of different breast biopsy methods in average-risk women suspected of having breast cancer. DATA SOURCES: Databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, searched from 1990 to September 2009. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that compared core-needle biopsy diagnoses with open surgical diagnoses or clinical follow-up. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were abstracted by 1 of 3 researchers and verified by the primary investigator. DATA SYNTHESIS: 33 studies of stereotactic automated gun biopsy; 22 studies of stereotactic-guided, vacuum-assisted biopsy; 16 studies of ultrasonography-guided, automated gun biopsy; 7 studies of ultrasonography-guided, vacuum-assisted biopsy; and 5 studies of freehand automated gun biopsy met the inclusion criteria. Low-strength evidence showed that core-needle biopsies conducted under stereotactic guidance with vacuum assistance distinguished between malignant and benign lesions with an accuracy similar to that of open surgical biopsy. Ultrasonography-guided biopsies were also very accurate. The risk for severe complications is lower with core-needle biopsy than with open surgical procedures (<1% vs. 2% to 10%). Moderate-strength evidence showed that women in whom breast cancer was initially diagnosed by core-needle biopsy were more likely than women with cancer initially diagnosed by open surgical biopsy to be treated with a single surgical procedure (random-effects odds ratio, 13.7 [95% CI, 5.5 to 34.6]). LIMITATION: The strength of evidence was rated low for accuracy outcomes because the studies did not report important details required to assess the risk for bias. CONCLUSION: Stereotactic- and ultrasonography-guided core-needle biopsy procedures seem to be almost as accurate as open surgical biopsy, with lower complication rates. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
BACKGROUND: Most women undergoing breast biopsy are found not to have cancer. PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy and harms of different breast biopsy methods in average-risk women suspected of having breast cancer. DATA SOURCES: Databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, searched from 1990 to September 2009. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that compared core-needle biopsy diagnoses with open surgical diagnoses or clinical follow-up. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were abstracted by 1 of 3 researchers and verified by the primary investigator. DATA SYNTHESIS: 33 studies of stereotactic automated gun biopsy; 22 studies of stereotactic-guided, vacuum-assisted biopsy; 16 studies of ultrasonography-guided, automated gun biopsy; 7 studies of ultrasonography-guided, vacuum-assisted biopsy; and 5 studies of freehand automated gun biopsy met the inclusion criteria. Low-strength evidence showed that core-needle biopsies conducted under stereotactic guidance with vacuum assistance distinguished between malignant and benign lesions with an accuracy similar to that of open surgical biopsy. Ultrasonography-guided biopsies were also very accurate. The risk for severe complications is lower with core-needle biopsy than with open surgical procedures (<1% vs. 2% to 10%). Moderate-strength evidence showed that women in whom breast cancer was initially diagnosed by core-needle biopsy were more likely than women with cancer initially diagnosed by open surgical biopsy to be treated with a single surgical procedure (random-effects odds ratio, 13.7 [95% CI, 5.5 to 34.6]). LIMITATION: The strength of evidence was rated low for accuracy outcomes because the studies did not report important details required to assess the risk for bias. CONCLUSION: Stereotactic- and ultrasonography-guided core-needle biopsy procedures seem to be almost as accurate as open surgical biopsy, with lower complication rates. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Authors: G Michael Allan; Michael P Chetner; Bryan J Donnelly; Neil A Hagen; David Ross; J Dean Ruether; Peter Venner Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Amy Trentham-Dietz; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Oguzhan Alagoz; Natasha K Stout; Ronald E Gangnon; John M Hampton; Kim Dittus; Ted A James; Pamela M Vacek; Sally D Herschorn; Elizabeth S Burnside; Anna N A Tosteson; Donald L Weaver; Brian L Sprague Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Nikola Kasprowicz; Gerd J Bauerschmitz; Alexandra Schönherr; Stephan E Baldus; Wolfgang Janni; Svjetlana Mohrmann Journal: Breast Care (Basel) Date: 2012-06-22 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Jered B Haun; Cesar M Castro; Rui Wang; Vanessa M Peterson; Brett S Marinelli; Hakho Lee; Ralph Weissleder Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2011-02-23 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Nina P Tamirisa; Kristin M Sheffield; Abhishek D Parmar; Christopher J Zimmermann; Deepak Adhikari; Gabriela M Vargas; Yong-Fang Kuo; James S Goodwin; Taylor S Riall Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Fahrettin Kılıç; Abdulkadir Eren; Necmettin Tunç; Mehmet Velidedeoğlu; Selim Bakan; Fatih Aydoğan; Varol Çelik; Ertuğrul Gazioğlu; Mehmet Halit Yılmaz Journal: J Breast Health Date: 2016-01-01