Literature DB >> 22088803

Accuracy of needle biopsy of breast lesions visible on ultrasound: audit of fine needle versus core needle biopsy in 3233 consecutive samplings with ascertained outcomes.

Beniamino Brancato1, Emanuele Crocetti, Simonetta Bianchi, Sandra Catarzi, Gabriella Gemma Risso, Paolo Bulgaresi, Francesco Piscioli, Michele Scialpi, Stefano Ciatto, Nehmat Houssami.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Core needle biopsy (CNB) has progressively replaced fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) in the diagnosis of breast lesions. Less information is available on how these tests perform for biopsy of ultrasound (US) visible breast lesions. This study examines the outcomes of CNB and FNAC in a large series ascertained with surgical histology or clinical-imaging follow-up.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective five-year audit of 3233 consecutive US-guided needle samplings of solid breast lesions, from self-referred symptomatic or asymptomatic subjects, performed by six radiologists in the same time-frame (2003-2006): 1950 FNAC and 1283 CNB. The probability of undergoing CNB as a first test instead of FNAC was evaluated using logistic regression. Accuracy and inadequacy were calculated for each of CNB and FNAC performed as first test. Accuracy measures included equivocal or borderline/atypical lesions as positive results.
RESULTS: The probability of CNB as a first test instead of FNAC increased significantly over time, when there was a pre-test higher level of suspicion, in younger (relative to older) women, with increasing lesion size on imaging, and for palpable (relative to impalpable) lesions. Inadequacy rate was lower for CNB (B1 = 6.9%) than for FNAC (C1 = 17.7%), p < 0.001, and specifically in malignant lesions (B1 = 0.9% vs. C1 = 4.5%; p < 0.001). False negative rate was equally low for both CNB and FNAC (1.7% each test). CNB performed significantly better than FNAC for absolute sensitivity (93.1% vs. 74.4%; p < 0.001) and complete sensitivity (97.4% vs. 93.8%; p = 0.001), however specificity was lower for CNB than FNAC (88.3% vs. 96.4%; p < 0.001). Absolute diagnostic accuracy was higher for CNB than FNAC (84.5% vs. 71.9; p < 0.001) while FNAC performed better than CNB for complete diagnostic accuracy (95.4% vs. 93.2; p < 0.008). In the small subgroup assessed with CNB after an inconclusive initial FNAC (231 cases) there was improved complete sensitivity (from 93.8% to 97.0%) however this also increased costs.
CONCLUSION: FNAC and CNB were generally performed in different patients, thus our study reported indirect comparisons of these tests. Although FNAC performed well (except for relatively high inadequacy), CNB had significantly better performance based on measures of sensitivity, but this was associated with lower specificity for CNB relative to FNAC. Overall, CNB is the more reliable biopsy method for sonographically-visible lesions; where FNAC is used as the first-line test, inadequate or inconclusive FNAC can be largely resolved by using repeat sampling with CNB.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22088803     DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2011.10.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast        ISSN: 0960-9776            Impact factor:   4.380


  11 in total

1.  Fine needle aspiration cytology in Mozambique: Report of a 15-year experience.

Authors:  Carla Carrilho; Mamudo Ismail; Cesaltina Lorenzoni; Fabíola Fernandes; Matos Alberto; Kevan Akrami; Carlos Funzamo; Nuno Lunet; Fernando Schmitt
Journal:  Diagn Cytopathol       Date:  2018-11-26       Impact factor: 1.582

2.  Ultrasound-Guided Core Biopsy of Breast Lesions in a Resource Limited Setting: Initial Experience of a Multidisciplinary Team.

Authors:  Chinedu Okoli; Uzoamaka Ebubedike; Stanley Anyanwu; Gabriel Chianakwana; Chinemelum Emegoakor; Cornelius Ukah; Eric Umeh; Micheal Onwukamuche; Ochonma Egwuonwu; Eric Ihekwoaba
Journal:  Eur J Breast Health       Date:  2020-03-31

3.  Pseudoaneurysm after an ultrasound-guided breast core needle biopsy in a lactating woman.

Authors:  Juliana Pessoa de Souza Chamadoira; Camila de Carvalho Figueiredo; Giovana Ortiz D'Ávila; Ana Paula de Carvalho Miranda Rosati Rocha; Érica Endo
Journal:  J Radiol Case Rep       Date:  2021-10-01

4.  CRISPR Technology for Breast Cancer: Diagnostics, Modeling, and Therapy.

Authors:  Rachel L Mintz; Madeleine A Gao; Kahmun Lo; Yeh-Hsing Lao; Mingqiang Li; Kam W Leong
Journal:  Adv Biosyst       Date:  2018-08-17

Review 5.  Status quo and development trend of breast biopsy technology.

Authors:  Yan-Jun Zhang; Lichun Wei; Jie Li; Yi-Qiong Zheng; Xi-Ru Li
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2013-02

6.  Same-day diagnosis based on histology for women suspected of breast cancer: high diagnostic accuracy and favorable impact on the patient.

Authors:  Maarten W Barentsz; Hester Wessels; Paul J van Diest; Ruud M Pijnappel; Carmen C van der Pol; Arjen J Witkamp; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Helena M Verkooijen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-07-21       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Use of Core Needle Biopsy rather than Fine-Needle Aspiration Cytology in the Diagnostic Approach of Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Paola Pagni; Flaminia Spunticchia; Simona Barberi; Giuliana Caprio; Carlo Paglicci
Journal:  Case Rep Oncol       Date:  2014-07-11

8.  Correlation Factors Analysis of Breast Cancer Tumor Volume Doubling Time Measured by 3D-Ultrasound.

Authors:  Shuyin Zhang; Yan Ding; Qiaoying Zhou; Cheng Wang; Pengxi Wu; Ji Dong
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2017-06-27

Review 9.  Fine-needle aspiration and core biopsy in the diagnosis of breast lesions: A comparison and review of the literature.

Authors:  Suvradeep Mitra; Pranab Dey
Journal:  Cytojournal       Date:  2016-08-31       Impact factor: 2.091

10.  Elite VABB 13G: A New Ultrasound-Guided Wireless Biopsy System for Breast Lesions. Technical Characteristics and Comparison with Respect to Traditional Core-Biopsy 14-16G Systems.

Authors:  Daniele La Forgia; Alfonso Fausto; Gianluca Gatta; Graziella Di Grezia; Angela Faggian; Annarita Fanizzi; Daniela Cutrignelli; Rosalba Dentamaro; Vittorio Didonna; Vito Lorusso; Raffaella Massafra; Sabina Tangaro; Maria Antonietta Mazzei
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2020-05-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.