BACKGROUND: The purpose of study was to evaluate radiologic or clinical features of breast cancer undergoing ultrasound (US)-guided 14G core needle biopsy (CNB) and analyze the differences between underestimated and accurately diagnosed groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 1,898 cases of US-guided 14G CNB in our institute, 233 cases were proven to be cancer by surgical pathology. The pathologic results from CNB were invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) (n=157), ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (n=40), high-risk lesions in 22 cases, and benign in 14 cases. Among high-risk lesions, 7 cases of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) were reported as cancer and 11 cases of DCIS were proven IDC in surgical pathology. Some 29 DCIS cases and 157 cases of IDC were correctly diagnosed with CNB. The clinical and imaging features between underestimated and accurately diagnosed breast cancers were compared. RESULTS: Of 233 cancer cases, underestimation occurred in 18 lesions (7.7%). Among underestimated cancers, CNB proven ADH (n=2) and DCIS (n=11) were diagnosed as IDC and CNB proven ADH (n=5) were diagnosed at DCIS finally. Among the 186 accurately diagnosed group, the CNB results were IDC (n=157) and DCIS (n=29). Comparison of underestimated and accurately diagnosed groups for BI-RADS category, margin of mass on mammography and US and orientation of lesion on US revealed statistically significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Underestimation of US-guided 14G CNB occurred in 7.7% of breast cancers. Between underestimated and correctly diagnosed groups, BI-RADS category, margin of the mass on mammography and margin and orientation of the lesions on US were different.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of study was to evaluate radiologic or clinical features of breast cancer undergoing ultrasound (US)-guided 14G core needle biopsy (CNB) and analyze the differences between underestimated and accurately diagnosed groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 1,898 cases of US-guided 14G CNB in our institute, 233 cases were proven to be cancer by surgical pathology. The pathologic results from CNB were invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) (n=157), ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (n=40), high-risk lesions in 22 cases, and benign in 14 cases. Among high-risk lesions, 7 cases of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) were reported as cancer and 11 cases of DCIS were proven IDC in surgical pathology. Some 29 DCIS cases and 157 cases of IDC were correctly diagnosed with CNB. The clinical and imaging features between underestimated and accurately diagnosed breast cancers were compared. RESULTS: Of 233 cancer cases, underestimation occurred in 18 lesions (7.7%). Among underestimated cancers, CNB proven ADH (n=2) and DCIS (n=11) were diagnosed as IDC and CNB proven ADH (n=5) were diagnosed at DCIS finally. Among the 186 accurately diagnosed group, the CNB results were IDC (n=157) and DCIS (n=29). Comparison of underestimated and accurately diagnosed groups for BI-RADS category, margin of mass on mammography and US and orientation of lesion on US revealed statistically significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Underestimation of US-guided 14G CNB occurred in 7.7% of breast cancers. Between underestimated and correctly diagnosed groups, BI-RADS category, margin of the mass on mammography and margin and orientation of the lesions on US were different.