BACKGROUND: Percutaneous needle biopsy, also known as minimally invasive breast biopsy (MIBB), has become the gold standard for the initial assessment of suspicious breast lesions. The purpose of this study is to determine modern rates of MIBB and open breast biopsy. METHODS: The Florida Agency for Health Care Administration outpatient surgery and procedure database was queried for patients undergoing open surgical biopsy and MIBB between 2003 and 2008. RESULTS: Although there was an increase in the use of MIBB, the overall rate of open surgical biopsy remained high (∼30%). A reduction in the open biopsy rate from 30% to 10% could be associated with a charge reduction of >$37.2 million per year. CONCLUSIONS: The current rate of open surgical breast biopsy remains high. Interventions and quality initiatives are warranted, which could lead to a reduction in unnecessary operations for women, improved patient care, and a reduction in breast health care costs.
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous needle biopsy, also known as minimally invasive breast biopsy (MIBB), has become the gold standard for the initial assessment of suspicious breast lesions. The purpose of this study is to determine modern rates of MIBB and open breast biopsy. METHODS: The Florida Agency for Health Care Administration outpatient surgery and procedure database was queried for patients undergoing open surgical biopsy and MIBB between 2003 and 2008. RESULTS: Although there was an increase in the use of MIBB, the overall rate of open surgical biopsy remained high (∼30%). A reduction in the open biopsy rate from 30% to 10% could be associated with a charge reduction of >$37.2 million per year. CONCLUSIONS: The current rate of open surgical breast biopsy remains high. Interventions and quality initiatives are warranted, which could lead to a reduction in unnecessary operations for women, improved patient care, and a reduction in breast health care costs.
Authors: Daniel W Visscher; Marlene H Frost; Lynn C Hartmann; Ryan D Frank; Robert A Vierkant; Ann E McCullough; Stacey J Winham; Celine M Vachon; Karthik Ghosh; Kathleen R Brandt; Ann M Farrell; Yaman Tarabishy; Tina J Hieken; Tufia C Haddad; Ruth A Kraft; Derek C Radisky; Amy C Degnim Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-10-29 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: V Shane Pankratz; Amy C Degnim; Ryan D Frank; Marlene H Frost; Daniel W Visscher; Robert A Vierkant; Tina J Hieken; Karthik Ghosh; Yaman Tarabishy; Celine M Vachon; Derek C Radisky; Lynn C Hartmann Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-01-26 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Nicolas Ajkay; Erica V Bloomquist; Robert C G Martin; Thomas G Frazier; Andrea V Barrio Journal: Surgery Date: 2015-08-14 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Christopher J Zimmermann; Kristin M Sheffield; Casey B Duncan; Yimei Han; Catherine D Cooksley; Courtney M Townsend; Taylor S Riall Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2013-02-01 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Jan M Eberth; Ying Xu; Grace L Smith; Yu Shen; Jing Jiang; Thomas A Buchholz; Kelly K Hunt; Dalliah M Black; Sharon H Giordano; Gary J Whitman; Wei Yang; Chan Shen; Linda Elting; Benjamin D Smith Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-06-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lin Chen; Shonket Ray; Brad M Keller; Said Pertuz; Elizabeth S McDonald; Emily F Conant; Despina Kontos Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-03-22 Impact factor: 11.105