Yu-Mee Sohn1, Jung Hyun Yoon2, Eun-Kyung Kim2, Hee Jung Moon2, Min Jung Kim2. 1. Department of Radiology, Breast Cancer Clinic, Severance Hospital, Research Institute of Radiological Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul 120-752, Korea. ; Department of Radiology, Kyung Hee University Hospital, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul 130-872, Korea. 2. Department of Radiology, Breast Cancer Clinic, Severance Hospital, Research Institute of Radiological Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul 120-752, Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the upgrade rate and delayed false-negative results of percutaneous vacuum-assisted removal (VAR) and surgical excision in women with imaging-histologic discordance during ultrasound (US)-guided automated core needle biopsy (CNB) of the breast and to validate the role of VAR as a rebiopsy method for these discordant lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Percutaneous US-guided 14-gauge CNB was performed on 7470 patients between August 2005 and December 2010. Our study population included 161 lesions in 152 patients who underwent subsequent rebiopsy due to imaging-histologic discordance. Rebiopsy was performed using VAR (n = 88) or surgical excision (n = 73). We investigated the upgrade rate immediately after rebiopsy and delayed false-negative results during at least 24 months of follow-up after rebiopsy. We also evaluated the clinicoradiological differences between VAR and surgical excision. RESULTS: Total upgrade to malignancy occurred in 13.7% (22/161) of lesions at rebiopsy including both VAR and surgical excision: 4.6% (4/88) of VAR cases (4/88) and 24.7% (18/73) of surgical excision cases (p < 0.001). Surgical excision was performed significantly more frequently in older patients and for larger-sized lesions than that of VAR, and a significant difference was detected between VAR and surgical excision in the Breast Imaging and Reporting and Data System category (p < 0.007). No delayed false-negative results were observed after VAR or surgical excision during the follow-up period. CONCLUSION: Long-term follow-up data showed no delayed cancer diagnoses after US-guided VAR in imaging-histologic discordant lesions of the breast, suggesting that VAR might be a rebiopsy method for these lesions.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the upgrade rate and delayed false-negative results of percutaneous vacuum-assisted removal (VAR) and surgical excision in women with imaging-histologic discordance during ultrasound (US)-guided automated core needle biopsy (CNB) of the breast and to validate the role of VAR as a rebiopsy method for these discordant lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Percutaneous US-guided 14-gauge CNB was performed on 7470 patients between August 2005 and December 2010. Our study population included 161 lesions in 152 patients who underwent subsequent rebiopsy due to imaging-histologic discordance. Rebiopsy was performed using VAR (n = 88) or surgical excision (n = 73). We investigated the upgrade rate immediately after rebiopsy and delayed false-negative results during at least 24 months of follow-up after rebiopsy. We also evaluated the clinicoradiological differences between VAR and surgical excision. RESULTS: Total upgrade to malignancy occurred in 13.7% (22/161) of lesions at rebiopsy including both VAR and surgical excision: 4.6% (4/88) of VAR cases (4/88) and 24.7% (18/73) of surgical excision cases (p < 0.001). Surgical excision was performed significantly more frequently in older patients and for larger-sized lesions than that of VAR, and a significant difference was detected between VAR and surgical excision in the Breast Imaging and Reporting and Data System category (p < 0.007). No delayed false-negative results were observed after VAR or surgical excision during the follow-up period. CONCLUSION: Long-term follow-up data showed no delayed cancer diagnoses after US-guided VAR in imaging-histologic discordant lesions of the breast, suggesting that VAR might be a rebiopsy method for these lesions.
Authors: L Liberman; M Drotman; E A Morris; L R LaTrenta; A F Abramson; M F Zakowski; D D Dershaw Journal: Cancer Date: 2000-12-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Enrico Cassano; Linei A B D Urban; Maria Pizzamiglio; Francesca Abbate; Patrick Maisonneuve; Giuseppe Renne; Giuseppe Viale; Massimo Bellomi Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2006-07-13 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: J E Meyer; D N Smith; S C Lester; P J DiPiro; C M Denison; S C Harvey; R L Christian; A Richardson; W D Ko Journal: Radiology Date: 1998-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Bong Kyun Kim; Sung Gwe Ahn; Se Jeong Oh; Hakyoung Kim; Eunyoung Kang; Yongsik Jung; Kyung Do Byun; Jina Lee; Woo Young Sun Journal: J Breast Cancer Date: 2021-12-09 Impact factor: 3.588