Breast Cancer

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 42–50 | Cite as

Rates of pathological underestimation for 9 and 12 gauge breast needle core biopsies at surgical excision

  • Stamatia Destounis
  • Melissa N. Skolny
  • Renee Morgan
  • Andrea Arieno
  • Philip F. Murphy
  • Patricia Somerville
  • Posy Seifert
  • Wende Young
Original Article

Abstract

Background

The clinical implementation of needle core biopsies has given radiologists an invaluable tool for the diagnostic evaluation of suspicious breast lesions. Despite improvements made to the technology of breast biopsy, the underestimation of disease in tissue samples retrieved continues. This can be attributed to many factors, including variability between different needle gauges. This study was undertaken to assess the pathological underestimation for 9 and 12 gauge breast needle core biopsies at surgical excision.

Materials and methods

A retrospective review of image-guided consecutive core needle biopsies performed from 2003 to 2006 yielded a total of 1,201 needle core biopsies: 837 twelve gauge and 364 nine gauge. Further analysis was completed to distinguish needle biopsies whose pathological outcome was underestimated at core needle biopsy when compared to their subsequent surgical excision. Ninety-seven lesions in 88 patients were reviewed and comprise the study cohort.

Results

Underestimation was found in 97 needle core procedures in 88 patients. Of the 97, 67 were performed with 12 gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy devices and 30 with 9 gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy devices, resulting in an underestimation rate of 8.00 and 8.24% for 12 gauge and 9 gauge, respectively. The difference in underestimation rate was not statistically significant per Pearson’s chi squared test (P = 0.8898).

Conclusion

In this analysis, the underestimation of needle biopsy results with surgical pathology was found to be 8.00% for the 12 gauge group and 8.24% for the 9 gauge group. These results support our current clinical practice of utilizing either needle gauge.

Keywords

Breast imaging Core needle biopsy Vacuum-assisted biopsy Underestimation 

References

  1. 1.
    Liberman L, Bracero N, Vuolo M, Dershaw DD, Morris EA, Abramson AF, et al. Percutaneous large-core biopsy of papillary breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;172:331–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schueller G, Jaromi S, Ponhold L, Fuchsjaeger M, Memarsadeghi M, Rudas M, et al. US-guided 14-gauge core-needle breast biopsy: results of a validation study in 1352 cases. Radiology. 2008;248:406–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190:202–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burak WE, Owens KE, Tighe MB, Kemp L, Dinges SA, Hitchcick C, et al. Vacuum-assisted stereotactic breast biopsy. Arch Surg. 2000;135:700–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rakha EA, Ellis IO. An overview of assessment of prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer needle core biopsy specimens. J Clin Pathol. 2007;60:1300–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Margolin FR, Leung JW, Jacobs RP, Denny SR. Percutaneous imaging-guided core breast biopsy; 5 years’ experience in a community hospital. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177:559–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Schaumloffel U, Viehweg P, Hofer H, Buchmann J, Lampe D. Minimally invasive stereotaxic vacuum core breast biopsy. Eur Radiol. 1998;8:377–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brem RF, Schoonjans JM, Goodman SN, Nolton A, Askin FB, Gatewood OM. Nonpalpable breast cancer: percutaneous diagnosis with 11- and 8-gauge stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy devices. Radiology. 2001;219:793–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lourenco AP, Mainiero MB, Lazarus E, Giri D, Schepps B. Stereotactic breast biopsy: comparison of histologic underestimation rates with 11- and 9- gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189:W275–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Darling ML, Smith DN, Lester SC, Kaelin C, Selland DG, Denison CM, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ as revealed by large-core needle breast biopsy: results of surgical excision. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;175:1341–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jang M, Cho N, Moon WK, Park JS, Seong MH, Park IA. Underestimation of atypical ductal hyperplasia at sonographically guided core biopsy of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191:1347–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liberman L, Hollan AE, Marjan D, Murray MP, Bartella L, Morris EA, et al. Underestimation of atypical ductal hyperplasia at MRI-guided 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:684–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jackman RJ, Burbank F, Parker SH, Evans WP, Lechner MC, Richardson TR, et al. Stereotactic breast biopsy of nonpalpable lesions: determinants of ductal carcinoma in situ underestimation rates. Radiology. 2001;218:497–502.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jackman RJ, Burbank F, Parker SH, Phil EW, Lechner MC, Richardson TR, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at stereotactic breast biopsy: improved reliability with 14-gauge, directional, vacuum-assisted biopsy. Radiology. 1997;204:484–8.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Philpotts LE, Lee CH, Horvath LJ, Lange RC, Carter D, Tocino I. Underestimation of breast cancer with 11-gauge vacuum-suction biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;175:1047–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Burbank F. Stereotactic breast biopsy of atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ lesions: improved accuracy with directional vacuum-assisted biopsy. Radiology. 1997;202:843–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Philpotts LE, Shaheen NA, Carter D, Lange RC, Lee CH. Comparison of re-biopsy rates after stereotactic core needle biopsy of the breast with 11-gauge vacuum suction probe versus 14-gauge needle and automated gun. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998;172:683–7.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Philpotts LE, Hooley RJ, Lee CH. Comparison of automated versus vacuum-assisted biopsy methods for sonographically guided core biopsy of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180:347–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Breast Cancer Society 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stamatia Destounis
    • 1
  • Melissa N. Skolny
    • 1
  • Renee Morgan
    • 1
  • Andrea Arieno
    • 1
  • Philip F. Murphy
    • 1
  • Patricia Somerville
    • 1
  • Posy Seifert
    • 1
  • Wende Young
    • 1
  1. 1.Elizabeth Wende Breast Care, LLCRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations