Advertisement

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 132, Issue 3, pp 917–923 | Cite as

Biopsy sampling of breast lesions: comparison of core needle- and vacuum-assisted breast biopsies

  • Maribel D. Lacambra
  • Christopher C. Lam
  • Paulo Mendoza
  • Siu Ki Chan
  • Alex M. Yu
  • Julia Y. S. Tsang
  • Puay Hoon Tan
  • Gary M. Tse
Preclinical study

Abstract

Needle biopsy is now the initial investigation of choice for the pre-operative diagnosis of breast lesions. This includes core needle biopsy (CNB) and vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) with or without radiologic assistance. The performance indices of both of these biopsy techniques were evaluated. In a large cohort of patients with breast lesions including 464 cases (285 CNB and 179 VAB), with confirmed outcomes, the diagnostic accuracy was compared using parameters including quantitation of the sampling based on the total number of cores taken, cores containing breast parenchyma, and cores with lesion; and non-epithelial changes including necrosis and calcification. CNB showed a 99% PPV, 94% NPV, 96% sensitivity, and 99% specificity, whereas VAB demonstrated a 100% PPV, 100% NPV, 100% sensitivity, and 100% specificity. The correct diagnosis in CNB was proportional to the number of cores extracted, whereas accuracy of VAB was independent of the total number of cores taken. There was a positive correlation between the presence of calcification and malignancy in CNB, but not detected under VAB. CNB and VAB were equally efficient in palpable lesions, in detecting necrosis, and calcification. Large calcification was found to be associated with malignancy in both CNB and VAB. In non-palpable lesions, VAB was more effective in the detection of calcification. The diagnostic accuracy of VAB appeared to be independent of number of cores sampled, whereas CNB required a minimum of 3–4 cores to achieve high diagnostic accuracy.

Keywords

Breast Biopsy Carcinoma Calcification 

Notes

Conflicts of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Parker SH, Jobe WE, Dennis MA et al (1993) US-guided automated large-core breast biopsy. Radiology 187:507–511PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bruening W, Fontanarosa J, Tipton K et al (2010) Systematic review: comparative effectiveness of core-needle and open surgical biopsy to diagnose breast lesions. Ann Intern Med 152:238–246PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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 33:47–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Parker SH, Burbank F, Jackman RJ et al (1994) Percutaneous large-core breast biopsy: a multi-institutional study. Radiology 193:359–364PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brenner RJ, Bassett LW, Fajardo LL et al (2001) Stereotactic core-needle breast biopsy: a multi-institutional prospective trial. Radiology 218:866–872PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Philpotts LE, Hooley RJ, Lee CH et al (2003) Comparison of automated vs vacuum-assisted biopsy methods for sonographically guided core biopsy of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:347–351PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sauer G, Deissler H, Strunz K et al (2005) Ultrasound-guided large-core needle biopsies of breast lesions: analysis of 962 cases to determine the number of samples for reliable tumour classification. Br J Cancer 92:231–235PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Londero V, Zuiani C, Linda A et al. (2011) Borderline breast lesions: comparison of malignancy underestimation rates with 14-gauge core needle biopsy versus 11-gauge vacuum-assisted device. Eur Radiol (in press)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pandelidis S, Heilman D, Jones D et al (2003) Accuracy of 11-gauge vacuum-assisted core biopsy of mammographic breast lesions. Ann Surg Oncol 10:43–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ho JT, Tan PH, Hee SW et al (2008) Underestimation of malignancy of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed on 11-gauge stereotactically guided mammotome breast biopsy: an Asian breast screen experience. Breast 17:401–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rovera F, Dionigi G, Marelli M et al (2008) Breast cancer diagnosis: the role of stereotactic vacuum-assisted aspiration biopsy. Int J Surg 6(Suppl 1):S104–S108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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 195:1255–1260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tse GM, Tan PH, Pang AL et al (2008) Calcification in the breast: pathologists’ perspective. J Clin Pathol 61:145–151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Muttarak M, Kongmebhol P, Sukhamwang N (2009) Breast calcifications: which are malignant? Singap Med J 50:907–913Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Powell RW, McSweeney MB, Wilson CE (1983) X ray calcifications as the only basis for breast biopsy. Ann Surg 197:555–559PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Park JM, Choi HK, Bae SJ et al (2000) Clustering of breast micorcalcifications: revisited. Clin Radiol 55:114–118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Egan RL, McSweeney MB, Sewell CW (1980) Intramammary calcifications without an associated mass in benign and malignant diseases. Radiology 137:1–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tse GM, Tan PH, Cheung HS et al (2008) Intermediate to highly suspicious calcification in breast lesions: a radio-pathologic correlation. Breast Cancer Res Treat 110:1–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li JL, Wang ZL, Su L et al (2010) Breast lesion with ultrasound imaging-histologic discordance at 16-gauge core needle biopsy: can re-biopsy with 10-gauge vacuum-assisted system get definitive diagnosis? Breast 19:446–449PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Choo KS, Kwak HS, Bae YT et al (2008) The value of combination of wire localization and ultrasound-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy for clustered micorcalcifications. Breast 17:611–616PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Su KL, Xu HB, Hu ZJ et al (2010) Vaccum-assited biopsy and wire localization for the diagnosis of non-palpable breast lesions. Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi 32:472–475PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kumaroswamy V, Liston J, Shaaban AM (2008) Vacuum assisted stereotactic guided mammotome biopsies in the management of screen-detected microcalcifications experience of a large breast screening center. J Clin Pathol 61:766–769PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Crystal P, Sadaf A, Bukhanov K et al (2011) High-risk lesions diagnosed at MRI-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: can underestimation be predicted? Eur Radiol 21:582–589PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tse GM, Tan PH (2010) Diagnosing breast lesion by fine needle aspiration cytology or core biopsy: which is better? Breast Cancer Res Treat 123:1–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ceccarelli G, Casciola L, Battistini I et al (2005) Non palpable lesions of the breast: the Mammotome-biopsy in the preoperative management of breast cancer. G Chir 26:187–193PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tonegutti M, Girardi V (2008) Stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in 268 non-palpable lesions. Radiol Med 113:65–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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 (in press)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Peters N, Hoorntje L, Mali W et al (2008) Diagnostic performance of stereotactic large core needle biopsy for nonpalpable breast lesions in routine clinical practice. Int J Cancer 15(122):468–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maribel D. Lacambra
    • 1
  • Christopher C. Lam
    • 1
  • Paulo Mendoza
    • 1
  • Siu Ki Chan
    • 2
  • Alex M. Yu
    • 1
  • Julia Y. S. Tsang
    • 1
  • Puay Hoon Tan
    • 3
  • Gary M. Tse
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Anatomical and Cellular Pathology, Prince of Wales HospitalThe Chinese University of Hong KongShatin, Hong KongPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Department of PathologyKwong Wah HospitalHong KongPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.Department of PathologySingapore General HospitalSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations