Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How to choose needles and probes for ultrasonographically guided percutaneous breast biopsy: a systematic approach

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article describes a systematic approach to choosing needles and probes for ultrasonographically guided (US-guided) percutaneous breast biopsy under various circumstances. The accuracy of US-guided percutaneous breast biopsy depends upon both the method chosen and lesion characteristics. Target accuracy and proper procedures are essential for predicting the yield regardless of the method chosen. Considering accuracy and cost, vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) should be offered only to appropriately selected patients. In particular, VAB should be the first choice for US-guided percutaneous breast biopsy of non-mass-like lesions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. O’Flynn EA, Wilson AR, Michell MJ. Image-guided breast biopsy: state-of-the-art. Clin Radiol. 2010;65:259–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Liberman L. Percutaneous image-guided core breast biopsy: state of the art at the millennium. Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174:1191–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Heinig A, Hellerhoff K, Holzhausen HJ, Nahrig J. Use of ultrasound-guided percutaneous vacuum-assisted breast biopsy for selected difficult indications. Breast J. 2009;15:348–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Uematsu T, Kasami M, Uchida Y, Yuen S, Sanuki J, Kimura K, et al. Ultrasonographically guided 18-gauge automated core needle breast biopsy wit post-fire needle position verification (PNPV). Breast Cancer. 2007;14:219–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Uematsu T, Kasami M. The use positive core was cytology to estimate potential risk of needle tract seeding of breast cancer: directional vacuum-assisted biopsy versus automated core needle biopsy. Breast Cancer. 2010;17:61–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Zagouri F, Gounaris A, Liakou P, Chersikos D, Flessas I, Bletsa G, et al. Vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: more cores, more hematomas? In Vivo. 2011;25:703–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Yazici B, Sever AR, Mills P, Fish D, Jones SE, Jones PA. Scar formation after stereotactic vacuum-assisted core biopsy of benign breast lesions. Clin Radiol. 2006;61:619–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Park HL, Kim LS. The current role of vacuum assisted breast biopsy system in breast disease. J Breast Cancer. 2011;14:1–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Parker SH, Burbank F, Jackman RJ, et al. Percutaneous large-core breast biopsy: a multi-institutional study. Radiology. 1994;193:359–64.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kasami M, Uematsu T, Honda M, Yabuzaki T, Sanuki J, Uchida Y, et al. Comparison of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and Her-2 status in breast cancer pre- and post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast. 2008;17:523–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tamaki K, Sasano H, Ishida T, Miyashita M, Takeda M, Amari M, et al. Comparison of core needle biopsy (CNB) and surgical specimens for accurate preoperative evaluation of ER, PgR and HER2 status of breast cancer patients. Cancer Sci. 2010;101:2074–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Uy GB, Laudico AV, Carnate JM Jr, Lim FG, Fernandez AM, Rivera RR, et al. Breast cancer hormone receptor assay results of core needle biopsy and modified radical mastectomy specimens from the same patients. Clin Breast Cancer. 2010;10:154–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Harvey JA, Moran RE, DeAngelis GA. Technique and pitfalls of ultrasound-guided core-needle biopsy of the breast. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2000;21:362–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Liberman L. Clinical management issues in percutaneous core breast biopsy. Radiol Clin North Am. 2000;38:791–807.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Parker SH. When is core biopsy really core? Radiology. 1992;185:641–2.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Maskarinec G, Nagata C, Shimizu H, Kashiki Y. Comparison of mammographic densities and their determinants in women from Japan and Hawaii. Int J Cancer. 2002;102:29–33.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Maskarinec G, Pagano I, Chen Z, Nagata C, Gram IT. Ethnic and geographic differences in mammographic density and their association with breast cancer incidence. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007;104:47–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Philpotts LE, Hooley RJ, Lee CH. Comparison of automated versus vacuum-assisted biopsy methods for sonographically guided core biopsy of the breast. Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180:347–51.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Youk JH, Kim EK, Kim MJ, Oh KK. Sonographically guided 14-gauge core needle biopsy of breast masses: a review of 2,420 cases with long-term follow-up. Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190:202–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). 4th ed. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hsu HH, Yu JC, Hsu GC, Chang WC, Yu CP, Tung HJ, et al. Ultrasonographic alterations associated with the dilatation of mammary ducts: feature analysis and BI-RADS assessment. Eur Radiol. 2010;20:293–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Takei J, Tsunoda-Shimizu H, Kikuchi M, Kawasaki T, Yagata H, Tsugawa K, et al. Clinical implications of architectural distortion visualized by breast ultrasonography. Breast Cancer. 2009;16:132–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Berg WA, Sechtin AG, Marques H, Zhang Z. Cystic breast masses and the ACRIN 6666 experience. Radiol Clin North Am. 2010;48:931–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Shin HJ, Kim HH, Kim SM, Yang HR, Sohn JH, Kwon GY, et al. Papillary lesions of the breast diagnosed at percutaneous sonographically guided biopsy: comparison of sonographic features and biopsy methods. Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190:630–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Parker SH, Klaus AJ, McWey PJ, Schilling KJ, Cupples TE, Duchesne N, et al. Sonographically guided directional vacuum-assisted breast biopsy using a handheld device. Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177:405–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Kim MJ, Kim EK, Lee JY, Youk JH, Park BW, Kim SI, et al. Breast lesions with imaging-histologic discordance during US-guided 14G automated core biopsy: can the directional vacuum-assisted removal replace the surgical excision? Initial findings. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:2376–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Breast Imaging and Breast Intervention Section, Shizuoka Cancer Center Hospital, Naga-izumi, Shizuoka, 411-8777, Japan

    Takayoshi Uematsu

Authors
  1. Takayoshi Uematsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Takayoshi Uematsu.

About this article

Cite this article

Uematsu, T. How to choose needles and probes for ultrasonographically guided percutaneous breast biopsy: a systematic approach. Breast Cancer 19, 238–241 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-012-0340-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-012-0340-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation