Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of the accuracy of US-guided biopsy of breast masses performed with 14-gauge, 16-gauge and 18-gauge automated cutting needle biopsy devices, and review of the literature

  • Ultrasound
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound (US)-guided core needle biopsy (CNB) of breast masses performed with 14-gauge, 16-gauge and 18-gauge needles.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the charts of 1,112 patients who underwent US-guided breast CNB with 14-gauge, 16-gauge and 18-gauge needles. Cases with surgical excision or a minimum of 2 years of imaging follow-up were included. Rates of sample inadequacy, discordance with surgical or imaging findings and upgrade of DCIS to invasive cancer or high-risk lesion to in situ or invasive cancer were computed for each needle size.

Results

The study included 703 CNBs: 203 performed with 14-gauge, 235 with 16-gauge and 265 with 18-gauge needles. There were no significant differences between 14-gauge, 16-gauge and 18-gauge needles in rates of specimen inadequacy (0 %, 0.4 % and 1.9 %, respectively) (p = 0.084); surgical discordance (2.6 %, 2.9 % and 3.8 %) (p = 0.76); imaging discordance (0 %, 0 % and 2 %) (p = 1.0); DCIS upgrade (43 %, 43 % and 36 %) (p = 1.00) or high-risk lesion upgrade (38 %, 25 % and 55 %) (p = 0.49).

Conclusion

There was no statistically significant difference in diagnostic accuracy of US-guided CNB of breast masses performed with 14-gauge, 16-gauge and 18-gauge needles.

Key Points

• Percutaneous image-guided breast core needle biopsy (CNB) is the standard of care.

• Breast CNB with 14-gauge, 16-gauge and 18-gauge needles has similar diagnostic accuracy.

• Smaller gauge needles can be confidently used for ultrasound-guided breast CNB.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Parker SH, Lovin JD, Jobe WE et al (1990) Stereotactic breast biopsy with a biopsy gun. Radiology 176:741–747

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Parker SH, Burbank F, Jackman RJ et al (1994) Percutaneous large-core breast biopsy: a multi-institutional study. Radiology 193:359–364

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fornage BD (1999) Sonographically guided needle biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions. J Clin Ultrasound 27:385–398

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mendelson EB, Böhm-Vélez M, Berg WA et al. (2013) ACR BI-RADS Ultrasound. In: ACR BI-RADS Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Reston, VA, American College of Radiology

  5. Krishnamurthy S, Bevers T, Kuerer H et al (2012) Multidisciplinary considerations in the management of high-risk breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198:W132–W140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nath ME, Robinson TM, Tobon H et al (1995) Automated large-core needle biopsy of surgically removed breast lesions: comparison of samples obtained with 14-, 16-, and 18-gauge needles. Radiology 197:739–742

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Helbich TH, Rudas M, Haitel A et al (1998) Evaluation of needle size for breast biopsy: comparison of 14-, 16-, and 18-gauge biopsy needles. AJR Am J Roentgenol 171:59–63

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Nguyen M, McCombs MM, Ghandehari S et al (1996) An update on core needle biopsy for radiologically detected breast lesions. Cancer 78:2340–2345

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Schoonjans JM, Brem RF (2001) Fourteen-gauge ultrasonographically guided large-core needle biopsy of breast masses. J Ultrasound Med 20:967–972

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Smith DN, Rosenfield Darling ML, Meyer JE et al (2001) The utility of ultrasonographically guided large-core needle biopsy: results from 500 consecutive breast biopsies. J Ultrasound Med 20:43–49

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Crystal P, Koretz M, Shcharynsky S et al (2005) Accuracy of sonographically guided 14-gauge core-needle biopsy: results of 715 consecutive breast biopsies with at least two-year follow-up of benign lesions. J Clin Ultrasound 33:47–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schueller G, Jaromi S, Ponhold L et al (2008) US-guided 14-gauge core-needle breast biopsy: results of a validation study in 1352 cases. Radiology 248:406–413

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Youk JH, Kim EK, Kim MJ et al (2008) Sonographically guided 14-gauge core needle biopsy of breast masses: a review of 2,420 cases with long-term follow-up. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:202–207

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Margolin FR, Leung JW, Jacobs RP et al (2001) Percutaneous imaging-guided core breast biopsy: 5 years’ experience in a community hospital. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177:559–564

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Uematsu T, Kasami M, Uchida Y et al (2007) Ultrasonographically guided 18-gauge automated core needle breast biopsy with post-fire needle position verification (PNPV). Breast Cancer 14:219–228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lai HW, Wu HK, Kuo SJ et al (2013) Differences in accuracy and underestimation rates for 14- versus 16-gauge core needle biopsies in ultrasound-detectable breast lesions. Asian J Surg 36:83–88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhou JY, Tang J, Wang ZL et al (2014) Accuracy of 16/18G core needle biopsy for ultrasound-visible breast lesions. World J Surg Oncol 12:7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Brenner JR, Fajardo L, Fisher PR et al (1996) Percutaneous core biopsy of the breast: effect of operator experience and number of samples on diagnostic accuracy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 166:341–346

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kirshenbaum K, Keppke A, Hou K et al (2012) Reassessing specimen number and diagnostic yield of ultrasound guided breast core biopsy. Breast J 18:464–469

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Perrot N, Jalaquier-Coudray A, Frey I et al (2013) US-guided core needle biopsy: false-negatives. How to reduce them? Eur J Radiol 82:424–426

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. de Lucena CE, Dos Santos Junior JL, de Lima Resenda CA et al (2007) Ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy of breast masses: how many cores are necessary to diagnose cancer? J Clin Ultrasound 35:363–366

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Park AY, Gweon HM, Son EJ et al (2014) Ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed at US-guided 14-gauge core-needle biopsy for breast mass: preoperative predictors of invasive breast cancer. Eur J Radiol 83:654–659

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Philpotts LE, Hooley RJ, Lee CH (2003) Comparison of automated versus vacuum-assisted biopsy methods for sonographically guided core biopsy of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:347–351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Mesurolle B, Perez JC, Azzumea F et al (2014) Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at sonographically guided core needle biopsy: frequency, final surgical outcome, and factors associated with underestimation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:1389–1394

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Houssami N, Ciatto S, Ellis I et al (2007) Underestimation of malignancy of breast core-needle biopsy: concepts and precise overall and category-specific estimates. Cancer 109:487–495

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Monica L. Huang, MD. The authors declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained for this retrospective study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1350, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Monica L. Huang, Kenneth Hess, Rosalind P. Candelaria, Beatriz E. Adrada & Bruno D. Fornage

  2. UC San Diego Health Sciences, 3855 Health Sciences Dr., #0846, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0846, USA

    Mohammad Eghtedari

  3. The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 0085, Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Nour Sneige

Authors
  1. Monica L. Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kenneth Hess
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rosalind P. Candelaria
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mohammad Eghtedari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Beatriz E. Adrada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nour Sneige
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Bruno D. Fornage
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monica L. Huang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Huang, M.L., Hess, K., Candelaria, R.P. et al. Comparison of the accuracy of US-guided biopsy of breast masses performed with 14-gauge, 16-gauge and 18-gauge automated cutting needle biopsy devices, and review of the literature. Eur Radiol 27, 2928–2933 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4651-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4651-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation