Advertisement

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 120, Issue 2, pp 469–479 | Cite as

Diagnostic value of vacuum-assisted breast biopsy for breast carcinoma: a meta-analysis and systematic review

  • Ying-Hua Yu
  • Chi LiangEmail author
  • Xi-Zi Yuan
Clinical Trial

Abstract

As mammography screening has its limitation in diagnosis in breast carcinoma, minimally invasive procedures offer a better option. We conducted a systematic review to establish the overall value of Vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VAB) for the diagnosis of breast cancer. After a review and quality assessment of 21 studies, sensitivity, specificity and other measures of accuracy of VAB for evaluating breast lesions were pooled using random-effects models. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves were used to summarize overall accuracy. Underestimate rate of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) were also calculated. The summary estimates for VAB in diagnosis of breast carcinoma were as follows: sensitivity, 0.981 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.972–0.987); specificity, 0.999 (95% CI, 0.997–0.999); positive likelihood ratio (PLR), 93.84 (95% CI, 41.55–211.95); negative likelihood ratio, 0.05 (95% CI, 0.03–0.09); diagnostic odds ratio, 1891.7 (95% CI, 683.8–5233.4); underestimate rate of ADH and DCIS were 20.9% (95% CI, 0.177–0.245) and 11.2% (95% CI, 0.098–0.128), respectively. VAB is a highly sensitive and specific biopsy method for evaluating mammographically detected breast in women. To be on the safe side, the diagnosis of ADH in VAB warrants surgical excision.

Keywords

Breast neoplasms Breast biopsies Accuracy Sensitivity and specificity Meta-analysis 

Abbreviations

AUC

Area under the curve

CI

Confidence interval

DOR

Diagnostic odds ratio

IFN

Interferon

NLR

Negative likelihood ratio

PLR

Positive likelihood ratio

QUADAS

Quality assessment for studies of diagnostic accuracy

RDOR

Relative diagnostic odds ratio

ROC

Receiver operating characteristic

SROC

Summary receiver operating characteristic

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Drs. Taixiang Wu, Chiliang Chen, and Martin Flett Brown for helpful discussions.

References

  1. 1.
    Gotzsche PC, Olsen O (2000) Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? Lancet 355:129–134CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Olsen O, Gotzsche PC (2001) Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet 358:1340–1342CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Elmore JG, Moceri VM, Barton MB, Polk S, Arena PJ, Fletcher SW (1998) Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med 338:1089–1096CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kopans DB (1992) The positive predictive value of mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 158:521–526PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brett J, Austoker J, Ong G (1998) Do women who undergo further investigation for breast screening suffer adverse psychological consequences? A multi-centre follow-up study comparing different breast screening result groups five months after their last screening appointment. J Public Health Med 20:396–403PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lidbrink E, Elfving J, Frisell J, Jonsson E (1996) Neglected aspects of false positive findings of mammography in breast cancer screening: analysis of false positive cases from the Stockholm trial. BMJ 312:273–276PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lowe JB, Balanda KP, Del Mar C, Hawes E (1999) Psychologic distress in women with abnormal findings in mass mammography screening. Cancer 85:1114–1118CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pisano ED, Fajardo LL, Tsimikas J et al (1998) Rate of insufficient samples for fine-needle aspiration for nonpalpable breast lesions in a multicenter clinical trial: the Radiologic Diagnostic Oncology Group 5 Study. The RDOG5 investigators. Cancer 82:679–688CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ciatto S, Brancato B, Risso G et al (2007) Accuracy of fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) of axillary lymph nodes as a triage test in breast cancer staging. Breast Cancer Res Treat 103:85–91CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mueller-Holzner E, Frede T, Daniaux M et al (2007) Ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy of the breast: does frozen section give an accurate diagnosis? Breast Cancer Res Treat 106(3):399–406CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Verkooijen HM, Peeters PHM, Buskens E et al (2000) Diagnostic accuracy of large-core needle biopsy for nonpalpable breast disease: a meta-analysis. Br J Cancer 82(5):1017–1021CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Verkooijen HM, Borel Rinkes IH, Peeters PH et al (2001) Impact of stereotactic large-core needle biopsy on diagnosis and surgical treatment of nonpalpable breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 27:244–249CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liberman L, Dershaw DD, Glassman JR et al (1997) Analysis of cancers not diagnosed at stereotactic core breast biopsy. Radiology 203:151–157PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brenner RJ, 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 166:341–346PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Parker SH, Burbank F (1996) A practical approach to minimally invasive breast biopsy. Radiology 200:11–20PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Burbank F, Parker SH, Fogarty TJ (1996) Stereotactic breast biopsy: improved tissue harvesting with the Mammotome. Am Surg 62:738–744PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liberman L, Gougoutas CA, Zakowski MF et al (2001) Calcifications highly suggestive of malignancy: comparison of breast biopsy methods. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177:165–172PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fahrbach K, Sledge I, Cella C et al (2006) A comparison of the accuracy of two minimally invasive breast biopsy methods: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 274:63–73CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Whiting PF, Weswood ME, Rutjes AWS et al (2006) Evaluation of QUADAS, a tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 6:9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Deville WL, Buntinx F, Bouter LM et al (2002) Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodol 2:9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B (1993) Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med 12:1293–1316PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Balk EM et al (2001) Diagnosing acute cardiac ischemia in the emergency department: a systematic review of the accuracy and clinical effect of current technologies. Ann Emerg Med 37:453–460CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Irwig L, Tosteson AN, Gatsonis C et al (1994) Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Ann Intern Med 120:667–676PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Suzuki S, Moro-oka T, Choudhry NK (2004) The conditional relative odds ratio provided less biased results for comparing diagnostic test accuracy in meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 57:461–469CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Westwood ME, Whiting PF, Kleijnen J (2005) How does study quality affect the results of a diagnostic meta-analysis? BMC Med Res Methodol 8:20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M et al (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315:629–634PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Simon JR, Kalbhen CL, Cooper RA, Flisak ME (2000) Accuracy and complication rates of US-guided vacuum-assisted core breast biopsy: initial results. Radiology 215(3):694–697PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lomoschitz FM, Helbich TH, Rudas M, Pfarl G, Linnau K, Stadler F, Jackman RJ (2004) A stereotactic 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: influence of number of specimens on diagnostic accuracy 1. RSNA 232(3):897–903Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Klem D, Jacobs HK, Jorgensen R, Facenda LS, Baker DA, Altimari A et al (1999) Stereotactic breast biopsy in a community hospital setting. Discuss Am Surg 65(8):737–741Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Killebrew LK, Oneson RH (2006) Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of a vacuum-assisted percutaneous intact specimen sampling device to a vacuum-assisted core needle sampling device for breast biopsy: initial experience. Breast J 12(4):302CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kettritz U, Rotter K, Schreer I, Murauer M, Schulz-Wendtland R, Peter D et al (2004) Stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VB) in 2874 patients: a multicenter study. EJC Suppl 2(3):88Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Weber WP, Zanetti R, Langer I, Dellas S, Zuber M, Moch H et al (2005) Mammotome: less invasive than ABBI with similar accuracy for early breast cancer detection. World J Surg 29(4):495–499CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Apesteguia L, Mellado M, Saenz J, Cordero J, Reparaz B, De Miguel C (2002) Vacuum-assisted breast biopsy on digital stereotaxic table of nonpalpable lesions non-recognisable by ultrasonography. Eur Radiol 12(3):638–645PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cassano E, Urban LABD, Pizzamiglio M, Abbate F, Maisonneuve P, Renne G (2007) Ultrasound-guided vacuum-assisted core breast biopsy: experience with 406 cases. Breast Cancer Res Treat 102(1):103–110CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mercado CL, Hamele-Bena D, Singer C, Koenigsberg T, Pile-Spellman E, Higgins H et al (2001) Papillary lesions of the breast: evaluation with stereotactic directional vacuum-assisted biopsy 1. RSNA 221(3):650–655Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Meloni GB, Dessole S, Becchere MP, Soro D, Capobianco G, Ambrosini G et al (2001) Ultrasound-guided mammotome vacuum biopsy for the diagnosis of impalpable breast lesions. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 18(5):520–524CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Shin HJ, Kim HH, Kim SM, Yang HR, Sohn JH, Kwon GY et al (2008) Papillary lesions of the breast diagnosed at percutaneous sonographically guided biopsy: comparison of sonographic features and biopsy methods. Am J Roentgenol 190(3):630–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    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 91:173–177CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Choo KS, Kwak HS, Bae YT, Lee JY, Lee SJ, Seo H et al (2008) The value of a combination of wire localization and ultrasound-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy for clustered microcalcifications. Breast 17(6):611–616CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Vag T, Pfleiderer SOR, Böttcher J, Wurdinger S, Gajda M, Camara O et al (2007) Ultrasound-guided breast biopsy using a 10-gauge self-contained vacuum-assisted device. Eur Radiol 17(12):3100–3102CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hung WK, Lam HS, Lau Y, Chan CM, Yip AWC (2001) Diagnostic accuracy of vacuum-assisted biopsy device for image-detected breast lesions. ANZ J Surg 71(8):457–460CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Perretta T, Pistolese CA, Bolacchi F, Cossu E, Fiaschetti V, Simonetti G (2008) MR imaging-guided 10-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: histological characterisation. La Radiol Med 113(6):830–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zannis VJ, Aliano KM, Klimberg VS, Beitsch PD (1998) The evolving practice pattern of the breast surgeon with disappearance of open biopsy for nonpalpable lesions. Am J Surg 176(6):525–528CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kim HS, Kim MJ, Kim EK et al (2008) US-guided vacuum-assisted biopsy of microcalcifications in breast lesions and long-term follow-up results. Korean J Radiol 9(6):503CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zhang YW, Cong JG, Cang QL, Ling Z, Qun WY (2008) The comparison between mammotome minimally invasive biopsy and cord needle in diagnosis for breast cancer. Chin J Gen Surg 17(11):1145–1147Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zang JX, Yu LG, Zen H, Ming CC, Hong L, Weiet GE et al (2007) Clinical application of minimally-invasive stereotactic mammotome biopsy. Wai Ke Li Lun Yu Shi Jian 12(6):577–579Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zhang L, Wu YQ, Wang LP, Zhou SQ (2004) Nonpalpable breast mass and atypical ductal hyperplasia-diagnosed by mammotome biopsy and surgical management. China J Mod Med 14(9):110–112Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sohn V, Arthurs Z, Herbert G, Keylock J, Perry J, Eckert M et al (2007) Atypical ductal hyperplasia: improved accuracy with the 11-gauge vacuum-assisted versus the 14-gauge core biopsy needle. Ann Surg Oncol 14(9):2497–2501CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Teng-Swan Ho J, Tan PH, Hee SW, Su-Lin Wong J (2008) Underestimation of malignancy of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed on 11-gauge stereotactically guided mammotome breast biopsy: an Asian breast screen experience. Breast 17(4):401–406CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Forgeard C, Benchaib M, Guerin N et al (2008) Is surgical biopsy mandatory in case of atypical ductal hyperplasia on 11-gauge core needle biopsy? A retrospective study of 300 patients. Am J Surg 196(3):339–345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Grady I, Gorsuch H, Wilburn-Bailey S (2005) Ultrasound-guided, vacuum-assisted, percutaneous excision of breast lesions: an accurate technique in the diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia. J Am Coll Surg 201(1):14–17CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Perlet C, Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Heinig A et al (2006) Magnetic resonance-guided, vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: results from a European multicenter study of 538 lesions. Cancer 106(5):982CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Liberman L, Holland AE, Marjan D et al (2007) Underestimation of atypical ductal hyperplasia at MRI-guided 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. AJR 188:684–690CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Pandelidis S, Heilman D, Jones D, Stough K, Trapeni J, Suliman Y (2003) Accuracy of 11-gauge vacuum-assisted core biopsy of mammographic breast lesions. Soc Surg Oncol 10(1):43–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Jackman RJ, Burbank F, Parker SH et al (1997) Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at stereotactic breast biopsy: improved reliability with 14-gauge, directional, vacuum-assisted biopsy. Radiology 204(2):485–488PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Won B, Reynolds HE, Lazaridis CL, Jackson VP (1999) Stereotactic biopsy of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast using an 11-gauge vacuum-assisted device: Persistent underestimation of disease. Am J Roentgenol 173(1):227–229Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Zografos GC, Zagouri F, Sergentanis TN, Nonni A, Koulocheri D, Fotou M et al (2008) Minimizing underestimation rate of microcalcifications excised via vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: a blind study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 109(2):397–402CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Burbank F (1997) Stereotactic breast biopsy of atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ lesions: improved accuracy with directional, vacuum-assisted biopsy. Radiology 202(3):843–847PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Jackman RJ, Burbank F, Parker SH, Evans WP, Lechner MC, Richardson TR (2001) Stereotactic breast biopsy of nonpalpable lesions: determinants of ductal carcinoma in situ underestimation rates 1. RSNA 218(2):497–502Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Brem RF, Schoonjans JM, Sanow L, Gatewood OMB (2001) Reliability of histologic diagnosis of breast cancer with stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy. Am Surg 67(4):388–392PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Zhang L, Sun QX (2008) Study of mammotome minimally invasive biopsy on the diagnosis of breast cancer. Zhong Guo Xian Dai Pu Tong Wai Ke Jin Zhan 11:210–212Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Yu-yang Li, Fan-zhen Hong, Yong-sheng Wang et al (2007) Use of mammotome system in diagnose of early stage breast cancer. Chin J Cancer Prev Treat 14:706–708Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Irfan K, Brem RF (2002) Surgical and mammographic follow-up of papillary lesions and atypical lobular hyperplasia diagnosed with stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy. Breast J 8(4):230–232CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Brem RF, Schoonjans JM, Nolten A et al (2001) Nonpalpable breast cancer: percutaneous diagnosis with 11- and 8-gauge stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy devices. Radiology 219:793–796PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Sim LSJ, Kei PL (2008) Upright stereotactic vacuum-assisted needle biopsy of suspicious breast microcalcifications. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 52:358–364CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Soo MS, Ghate S, Delong D, Soo MS, Ghate S, Delong D (1999) Stereotactic biopsy of noncalcified breast lesions: utility of vacuum-assisted technique compared to multipass automated gun technique. Clin Imaging 23(6):347–352CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Qu WZ, Wei T, Fu YZ, Man Z, Hua JG, Yong WQ et al (2008) The comparison between mammotome minimally invasive biopsy and tru-cut needle in diagnosis for breast cancer. Shi Yong Zhong Liu Zha Zhi 23(5):451–453Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Zuiani C, Mazzarella F, Londero V et al (2007) Stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: results, follow-up and correlation with radiological suspicion. Radiol Med 112:304–317CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Lee JM, Kaplan JB, Murray MP et al (2007) Imaging-histologic discordance at MRI-guided 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. AJR 189:1852–1859Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Mendez A, Cabanillas F, Echenique M et al (2004) Evaluation of breast imaging reporting and data system category 3 mammograms and the use of stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in a nonacademic community practice. Cancer 100:710–714CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Zografos GC, Zagouri F, Sergentanis TN et al (2007) Is zero underestimation feasible? Extended vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in solid lesions—a blind study. World J Surg Oncol 5:53CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Cui M, Liu W, Qin Y et al (2005) Application of ultrasound guided mammotome minimally invasive biopsy system in breast lesions. Chin J Cancer Prev Treat 12:1405–1406Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Wang LP, Deng YB, Lu YP et al (2005) Application of ultrasonography in minimally invasive diagnosis and treatment of breast disease. Chin J Ultrasonogr 14:671–673Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Wei DZ, Lu XY, Zhu DJ et al (2007) Application of high-resolution ultrasound and CDFI-guided minimally invasive operation for breast cancer. Chin J Prim Med Pharm 14:1121–1123Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB et al (2003) The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 3:25CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH et al (2003) The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol 56:1129–1135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Deeks JJ (2001) Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. In: Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG (eds) Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. BMJ Publishing Group, London, UK, pp 248–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Jaeschke R, Guyatt G, Lijmer J (2002) Diagnostic tests. In: Guyatt G, Rennie D (eds) Users’ guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. AMA Press, Chicago, IL, pp 121–140Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Jaeschke R, Guyatt G, Lijmer J. Diagnostic tests. In: Guyatt G, Rennie D (eds) (2002) Users’ guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. AMA Press, Chicago, IL, pp 121–140Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW, Rados MS (1985) Atypical hyperplastic lesions of the female breast: a long-term follow-up study. Cancer 55:2698–2708CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Tavassoli F, Norris HA (1990) Comparison of the results of long-term follow-up for atypical intraductal hyperplasia and intraductal hyperplasia of the breast. Cancer 65:518–529CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Page DL, Rogers LW (1992) Combined histologic and cytologic criteria for the diagnosis of mammary atypical ductal hyperplasia. Hum Pathol 23:1095–1097CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Petitti DB (2001) Approaches to heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat Med 20:3625–3633CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Bauer VP, Ditkoff BA, Schnabel F et al (2003) The management of lobular neoplasia identified on percutaneous core breast biopsy. Breast J 9(1):4–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Surgerythe Third Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical UniversityNanningPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Department of Surgerythe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical UniversityNanningPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations