PURPOSE: To assess the reliability and reproducibility of automated large-core breast biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A consortium of 20 institutions reported, in a standardized fashion, their core breast biopsy data. All biopsies were performed with "long-throw" (2.3-cm) automated core biopsy devices fitted with 14-gauge needles. Needle guidance was accomplished by means of either a dedicated, stereotaxic device, in which the patient lies in the prone position, or high-frequency electronically focused ultrasound equipment. RESULTS: The data in 6,152 lesions were gathered. Clinical or surgical follow-up was available in 3,765 lesions; 1,363 of these lesions were subsequently surgically excised, and the core histologic study showed cancer in 910 lesions, mammary intraepithelial neoplasia in 173 lesions, and benign disease in 280 lesions. In these 280 lesions, there were 15 false-negative core biopsies. CONCLUSION: The data show that percutaneous large-core breast biopsy is a reproducible and reliable alternative to surgical biopsy.
PURPOSE: To assess the reliability and reproducibility of automated large-core breast biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A consortium of 20 institutions reported, in a standardized fashion, their core breast biopsy data. All biopsies were performed with "long-throw" (2.3-cm) automated core biopsy devices fitted with 14-gauge needles. Needle guidance was accomplished by means of either a dedicated, stereotaxic device, in which the patient lies in the prone position, or high-frequency electronically focused ultrasound equipment. RESULTS: The data in 6,152 lesions were gathered. Clinical or surgical follow-up was available in 3,765 lesions; 1,363 of these lesions were subsequently surgically excised, and the core histologic study showed cancer in 910 lesions, mammary intraepithelial neoplasia in 173 lesions, and benign disease in 280 lesions. In these 280 lesions, there were 15 false-negative core biopsies. CONCLUSION: The data show that percutaneous large-core breast biopsy is a reproducible and reliable alternative to surgical biopsy.
Authors: A E Ibrahim; A C Bateman; J M Theaker; J L Low; B Addis; P Tidbury; C Rubin; M Briley; G T Royle Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: J H Yim; P Barton; B Weber; D Radford; J Levy; B Monsees; F Flanagan; J A Norton; G M Doherty Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1996-06 Impact factor: 12.969