Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Mammotome® and EnCor®: comparison of two systems for stereotactic vacuum-assisted core biopsy in the characterisation of suspicious mammographic microcalcifications alone

  • BREAST RADIOLOGY
  • Published:
La radiologia medica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The authors sought to compare the diagnostic performance of the Mammotome® and EnCor® vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VABB) systems in the assessment of suspicious mammographic microcalcifications.

Materials and methods

Between January 2011 and July 2012, a total of 169 VABB were performed by stereotactic guidance on a prone table. The Mammotome® 11G (S1) or EnCor® 10G (S2) probes were used randomly. Sampling time and the number of frustules collected were considered; sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, positive and negative predictive value (PPV, NPV) of both procedures were evaluated, considering the final histological examination as reference (B1, B3, B5 lesions underwent surgical excision; B2 lesion were considered confirmed after a negative follow-up of at least 1 year).

Results

There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups of patients according to the number of procedures (S1 82/169; S2 87/169), average age, BIRADS category (4a, b), and average size of the lesions. The two systems did not differ statistically for correlation with the final histology (S1 k = 0.94 ± 0.06; S2 k = 0.92 ± 0.08) and underestimation of B3 lesions or in situ (S1 4.5 %; S2 4.3 %). Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, diagnostic accuracy of S1 and S2 were also not statistically different. The systems differed only in sampling time (S1 80; S2 63 s), but not in total procedure time.

Conclusions

Our study confirms the effectiveness of VABB in the assessment of microcalcifications and highlights the lack of significant differences between the two systems in terms of diagnostic performance.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Luparia A, Durando M, Campanino P et al (2011) Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of stereotactic vacuum-assisted core biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions: analysis of 602 biopsies performed over 5 years. Radiol Med 116:477–488. doi:10.1007/s11547-011-0625-x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Park HL, Kim LS (2011) The current role of vacuum assisted breast biopsy system in breast disease. J Breast Cancer 14:1–7. doi:10.4048/jbc.2011.14.1.1

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Perry N, Broeders M, De Wolf C et al (2008) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition––summary document. Ann Oncol 19:614–622

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wilson R, Liston J (2010) Clinical Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening Assessment, 3rd edn. NHSBSP Publication No 49. Available from: http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/breastscreen/publications/nhsbsp49.html. Accessed 1 Mar 2014

  5. Bernardi D, Borsato G, Pellegrini M et al (2012) On the diagnostic accuracy of stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy of nonpalpable breast abnormalities. Results in a consecutive series of 769 procedures performed at the Trento Department of Breast Diagnosis. Tumori 98:113–118. doi:10.1700/1053.11509

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wallis M, Tardivon A, Helbich T, Schreer I (2007) Guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging for diagnostic interventional breast procedures. Eur Radiol 17:581–588

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. American College of Radiology (2003) Guidance chapter. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas (BI-RADS® Atlas). Reston, Va: © American College of Radiology, pp 253–259

  8. Ellis IO, Humphreys S, Michell M, UK National Coordinating Committee for Breast Screening Pathology, European Commission Working Group on Breast Screening Pathology et al (2004) Best practice no 179. Guidelines for breast needle core biopsy handling and reporting in breast screening assessment. J Clin Pathol 57:897–902

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dhillon MS, Bradley SA, England DW (2006) Mammotome biopsy: impact on preoperative diagnosis rate. Clin Radiol 61:276–281

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wang ZL, Liu G, Huang Y et al (2012) Percutaneous excisional biopsy of clinically benign breast lesions with vacuum-assisted system: comparison of three devices. Eur J Radiol 81:725–730. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.01.059

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lourenco AP, Mainiero MB, Lazarus E et al (2007) Stereotactic breast biopsy: comparison of histologic underestimation rates with 11- and 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:W275–W279

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Venkataraman S, Dialani V, Gilmore HL, Mehta TS (2012) Stereotactic core biopsy: comparison of 11 gauge with 8 gauge vacuum assisted breast biopsy. Eur J Radiol 81:2613–2619. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.10.027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Liberman L, Kaplan JB, Morris EA et al (2002) To excise or to sample the mammographic target: what is the goal of stereotactic 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy? AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:679–683

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Penco S, Rizzo S, Bozzini AC et al (2010) Stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy is not a therapeutic procedure even when all mammographically found calcifications are removed: analysis of 4,086 procedures. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:1255–1260. doi:10.2214/AJR.10.4208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zuiani C, Mazzarella F, Londero V et al (2007) Stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: results, follow-up and correlation with radiological suspicion. Radiol Med 112:304–317

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Balleyguier C, Ayadi S, Van Nguyen K et al (2007) BIRADS classification in mammography. Eur J Radiol 61:192–194

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pijnappel RM, Peeters PH, Hendriks JH, Mali WP (2004) Reproducibility of mammographic classifications for non-palpable suspect lesions with microcalcifications. Br J Radiol 77:312–314

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Coşar ZS, Cetin M, Tepe TK et al (2005) Concordance of mammographic classifications of microcalcifications in breast cancer diagnosis. Utility of the breast imaging reporting and data system (fourth edition). Clin Imaging 29:389–395

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cangiarella J, Waisman J, Symmans WF et al (2001) Mammotome core biopsy for mammary microcalcification: analysis of 160 biopsies from 142 women with surgical and radiologic follow up. Cancer 91:173–177

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chapellier C, Balu-Maestro C, Amoretti N et al (2006) Vacuum-assisted breast biopsies. Experience at the Antoine Lacassagne Cancer Center (Nice, France). Clin Imaging 30:99–107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Meyer JE, Smith DN, Di Piro PJ et al (1997) Stereotactic breast biopsy of clustered microcalcifications with a directional, vacuum-assisted device. Radiology 204:575–576

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Apesteguía L, Mellado M, Sáenz J et al (2002) Vacuum-assisted breast biopsy on digital stereotaxic table of nonpalpable lesions non-recognisable by ultrasonography. Eur Radiol 12:638–645

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tonegutti M, Girardi V (2008) Stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in 268 nonpalpable lesions. Radiol Med 113:65–75. doi:10.1007/s11547-008-0226-0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini e Radioterapia, S.C. Radiologia Universitaria––Università di Torino, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Via Genova 3, 10126, Turin, Italy

    Giovanna Mariscotti, Manuela Durando, Mattia Robella, Francesca Angelino, Elisa Regini, Marco Belletti, Silvia Osano, Paolo Fonio & Giovanni Gandini

  2. Servizio di Diagnostica Clinica Senologica, Ospedale Koelliker, C.so Galileo Ferraris 256, Turin, Italy

    Pier Paolo Campanino

  3. Dipartimento di Scienze Chirurgiche, Università di Torino Azienda Ospedaliera Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino Presidio Molinette, Corso Bramante 88, 10126, Turin, Italy

    Laura Bergamasco

Authors
  1. Giovanna Mariscotti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Manuela Durando
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mattia Robella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Francesca Angelino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Elisa Regini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Pier Paolo Campanino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Marco Belletti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Silvia Osano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Laura Bergamasco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Paolo Fonio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Giovanni Gandini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giovanna Mariscotti.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mariscotti, G., Durando, M., Robella, M. et al. Mammotome® and EnCor®: comparison of two systems for stereotactic vacuum-assisted core biopsy in the characterisation of suspicious mammographic microcalcifications alone. Radiol med 120, 369–376 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-014-0452-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-014-0452-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation