Christian Waldherr1, Gilles Berclaz2, Hans Jörg Altermatt3, Peter Cerny4, Patrik Keller4, Uwe Dietz2, Katharina Buser5, Michele Ciriolo5, Martin Josef Sonnenschein4. 1. Breast Centre Bern (Brustzentrum Bern), Division of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Klinik Engeried, Lindenhofgruppe, Riedweg 15, 3012 Bern, Bern, Switzerland. christian.waldherr@lindenhofgruppe.ch. 2. Breast Centre Bern (Brustzentrum Bern), Division of Gynaecology & Surgical Oncology, Klinik Engeried, Lindenhofgruppe, Bern, Switzerland. 3. Institute of Pathology Länggasse, Division of Histopathology, Bern, Switzerland. 4. Breast Centre Bern (Brustzentrum Bern), Division of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Klinik Engeried, Lindenhofgruppe, Riedweg 15, 3012 Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 5. Breast Centre Bern (Brustzentrum Bern), Division of Oncology (Oncocare), Klinik Engeried, Lindenhofgruppe, Bern, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Evaluation of feasibility and clinical performance of a tomosynthesis-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (TVAB) system compared to Stereotaxy (SVAB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: All biopsies were performed on consecutive patients: 148 TVAB biopsies and 86 biopsies on different patients using SVAB. Evaluation criteria for each biopsy were technical feasibility, histopathology, procedure time, and complications. RESULTS: All 148 TVAB biopsies were technically successful, and gained the targeted groups of microcalcifications (100 %). In 1 of 86 SVAB procedures, it was not possible to gain the targeted microcalcifications (1 %), in 3 of 86 the needle had to be adjusted (4 %). All TVAB biopsies were performed without clinically relevant complications. Distortions were biopsied exclusively by TVAB, mean size 0.9 cm, p < 0.0001. Of the 24 distortions, 13 were cancer, 11 Radial Scars/ CSL. The mean procedure time for TVAB was 15.4 minutes (range 7-28 min), for SVAB 23 minutes (range 11-46 min), p < 0.0001. CONCLUSIONS: TVAB is able to biopsy small architectural distortions with high accuracy. TVAB is easily feasible and appears to have the same degree of clinical performance for diagnosing microcalcifications. The increased number of biopsied distortions by TVAB is presumably due to increased use of tomosynthesis and its diagnostic potential. KEY POINTS: • TVAB is easily feasible. • TVAB is able to target architectural distortions with high accuracy. • TVAB diagnoses microcalcifications with the same clinical performance as SVAB.
PURPOSE: Evaluation of feasibility and clinical performance of a tomosynthesis-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (TVAB) system compared to Stereotaxy (SVAB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: All biopsies were performed on consecutive patients: 148 TVAB biopsies and 86 biopsies on different patients using SVAB. Evaluation criteria for each biopsy were technical feasibility, histopathology, procedure time, and complications. RESULTS: All 148 TVAB biopsies were technically successful, and gained the targeted groups of microcalcifications (100 %). In 1 of 86 SVAB procedures, it was not possible to gain the targeted microcalcifications (1 %), in 3 of 86 the needle had to be adjusted (4 %). All TVAB biopsies were performed without clinically relevant complications. Distortions were biopsied exclusively by TVAB, mean size 0.9 cm, p < 0.0001. Of the 24 distortions, 13 were cancer, 11 Radial Scars/ CSL. The mean procedure time for TVAB was 15.4 minutes (range 7-28 min), for SVAB 23 minutes (range 11-46 min), p < 0.0001. CONCLUSIONS:TVAB is able to biopsy small architectural distortions with high accuracy. TVAB is easily feasible and appears to have the same degree of clinical performance for diagnosing microcalcifications. The increased number of biopsied distortions by TVAB is presumably due to increased use of tomosynthesis and its diagnostic potential. KEY POINTS: • TVAB is easily feasible. • TVAB is able to target architectural distortions with high accuracy. • TVAB diagnoses microcalcifications with the same clinical performance as SVAB.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Diagnostic techniques and procedures; Image-guided biopsy; Mammography; Tomosynthesis
Authors: Suzie J Otto; Jacques Fracheboud; Caspar W N Looman; Mireille J M Broeders; Rob Boer; Jan H C L Hendriks; André L M Verbeek; Harry J de Koning Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-04-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Stephen L Rose; Andra L Tidwell; Louis J Bujnoch; Anne C Kushwaha; Amy S Nordmann; Russell Sexton Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Per Skaane; Andriy I Bandos; Randi Gullien; Ellen B Eben; Ulrika Ekseth; Unni Haakenaasen; Mina Izadi; Ingvild N Jebsen; Gunnar Jahr; Mona Krager; Loren T Niklason; Solveig Hofvind; David Gur Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-01-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Per Skaane; Andriy I Bandos; Randi Gullien; Ellen B Eben; Ulrika Ekseth; Unni Haakenaasen; Mina Izadi; Ingvild N Jebsen; Gunnar Jahr; Mona Krager; Solveig Hofvind Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-04-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Joao V Horvat; Delia M Keating; Halio Rodrigues-Duarte; Elizabeth A Morris; Victoria L Mango Journal: Radiographics Date: 2019-01-25 Impact factor: 5.333