Literature DB >> 24217642

Cancelled stereotactic biopsy of calcifications not seen using the stereotactic technique: do we still need to biopsy?

Sandra B Brennan1, Donna D'Alessio, Laura Liberman, Dilip Giri, Edi Brogi, Elizabeth A Morris.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of cancelled stereotactic biopsy due to non-visualisation of calcifications, and assess associated features and outcome data.
METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on 1,874 patients scheduled for stereotactic-guided breast biopsy from 2009 to 2011. Medical records and imaging studies were reviewed.
RESULTS: Of 1,874 stereotactic biopsies, 76 (4 %) were cancelled because of non-visualisation of calcifications. Prompt histological confirmation was obtained in 42/76 (55 %). In 28/76 (37 %) follow-up mammography was performed, and 7/28 subsequently underwent biopsy. Of 27 without biopsy, 21 (78 %) had follow-up. Nine cancers (9/49, 18 %) were found: 6 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), 3 infiltrating ductal carcinoma (IDC). Of 54 patients with either biopsy or at least 2 years' follow-up, 9 (17 %) had cancer (95 % CI 8-29). Cancer was present in 7/42 (17 %, 95 % CI 7-31 %) lesions that had prompt histological confirmation (DCIS = 5, IDC = 2) and in 2/28 (7 %, 95 % CI 0.8-24 %) lesions referred for follow-up (DCIS = 1, IDC = 1). Neither calcification morphology (P = 0.2), patient age (P = 0.7), breast density (P = 1.0), personal history (P = 1.0) nor family history of breast cancer (P = 0.5) had a significant association with cancer.
CONCLUSION: Calcifications not visualised on the stereotactic unit are not definitely benign and require surgical biopsy or follow-up. No patient or morphological features were predictive of cancer. KEY POINTS: • Half of cancelled stereotactic biopsies were due to non-visualisation of calcified foci. • This reflects the improved detection of calcifications by digital mammography. • Calcifications too faint for the stereotactic technique require alternative biopsy or follow-up • 17 % of patients with biopsy or at least 2 years' follow-up had cancer. • No patient/morphological features were found to aid selection for re-biopsy vs. follow-up.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24217642     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-013-3055-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  15 in total

1.  Cost-effectiveness of stereotactic 11-gauge directional vacuum-assisted breast biopsy.

Authors:  L Liberman; M P Sama
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Flat-panel digital mammography system: contrast-detail comparison between screen-film radiographs and hard-copy images.

Authors:  Sankararaman Suryanarayanan; Andrew Karellas; Srinivasan Vedantham; Hetal Ved; Stephen P Baker; Carl J D'Orsi
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 3.  Percutaneous image-guided core breast biopsy.

Authors:  Laura Liberman
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 2.303

4.  Calcifications in digital mammographic screening: improvement of early detection of invasive breast cancers?

Authors:  Stefanie Weigel; Thomas Decker; Eberhard Korsching; Daniela Hungermann; Werner Böcker; Walter Heindel
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Impact of stereotaxic core breast biopsy on cost of diagnosis.

Authors:  L Liberman; M C Fahs; D D Dershaw; E Bonaccio; A F Abramson; M A Cohen; L E Hann
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Digital mammography in a screening programme and its implications for pathology: a comparative study.

Authors:  Linda Feeley; Donal Kiernan; Therese Mooney; Fidelma Flanagan; Gormlaith Hargaden; Malcolm Kell; Maurice Stokes; Margaret Kennedy
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2010-12-22       Impact factor: 3.411

7.  Comparison of digital screening mammography and screen-film mammography in the early detection of clinically relevant cancers: a multicenter study.

Authors:  Adriana M J Bluekens; Roland Holland; Nico Karssemeijer; Mireille J M Broeders; Gerard J den Heeten
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-10-02       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening program.

Authors:  Niamh M Hambly; Michelle M McNicholas; Niall Phelan; Gormlaith C Hargaden; Ann O'Doherty; Fidelma L Flanagan
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts.

Authors:  Marco Rosselli Del Turco; Paola Mantellini; Stefano Ciatto; Rita Bonardi; Francesca Martinelli; Barbara Lazzari; Nehmat Houssami
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Estimating the cost-effectiveness of stereotaxic biopsy for nonpalpable breast abnormalities: a decision analysis model.

Authors:  B E Hillner; H D Bear; L L Fajardo
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 3.173

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.