Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of the clinical and pathological characteristics of ultrasound-guided biopsy for breast masses and non-mass lesions between 16-gauge spring-loaded core needle biopsy and 12-gauge spring-loaded vacuum-assisted biopsy

  • Original Article–breast & Thyroid
  • Published:
Journal of Medical Ultrasonics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To retrospectively compare the clinical and pathological characteristics of breast masses and non-mass lesions that underwent ultrasound (US)-guided 16-gauge spring-loaded core needle biopsy (CNB) or 12-gauge spring-loaded vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB).

Methods

We retrospectively compared the results from US-guided diagnostic breast biopsy performed with a 16-gauge CNB (Magnum™) or a 12-gauge VAB (Celero®). The patients’ backgrounds and pathological features for each device were examined.

Results

In 453 patients with 500 lesions, 373 lesions underwent CNB and 127 underwent VAB. The positive biopsy rate (positive predictive value 3) was significantly higher for VAB (92/127; 72.4%) than for CNB (231/373; 61.9%) (P = 0.032). Non-mass lesions were biopsied more frequently with VAB (57/127; 47.4%) than with CNB (27/378; 7.14%) (P = 0.000). The upgrade rate from high-risk to malignant lesions was significantly higher for CNB (5/19; 26.3%) than for VAB (1/8; 12.5%) (P = 0.043). There were five (1.34%) specimen failures with CNB and one (0.78%) with VAB, 18 (4.82%) re-biopsies with CNB and three (2.36%) with VAB, and 11/21 (52.4%) upgrades from ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) to invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) with CNB and 11/30 (36.7%) with VAB. Although these rates tended to be higher with CNB than with VAB, the difference was not significant.

Conclusion

Although VAB had a significantly higher rate of non-mass lesion biopsies, the upgrade rate from high-risk to malignant lesions was significantly lower for VAB than for CNB. US-guided 12-gauge spring-loaded VAB may be more appropriate for biopsy of non-mass lesions.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Not Applicable.

References

  1. Hooley RJ, Scoutt LM, Philpotts LE. Breast ultrasonography: state of the art. Radiology. 2013;268:642–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fujioka T, Mori M, Kubota K, et al. Simultaneous comparison between strain and shear wave elastography of breast masses for the differentiation of benign and malignant lesions by qualitative and quantitative assessments. Breast Cancer. 2019;26:792–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tan PH, Ellis I, Allison K. The 2019 World Health Organization classification of tumours of the breast. Histopathology. 2020;77:181–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mendelson E, Baum J, Berg W, et al. Breast imaging reporting and data system, BI-RADS: Ultrasound. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ko KH, Hsu HH, Yu JC, et al. Non-mass-like breast lesions at ultrasonography: feature analysis and BI-RADS assessment. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84:77–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Uematsu T. How to choose needles and probes for ultrasonographically guided percutaneous breast biopsy: a systematic approach. Breast Cancer. 2012;19:238–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Goldhirsch A, Winer EP, Coates AS, et al. Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2013. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:2206–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Simon JR, Kalbhen CL, Cooper RA, et al. Accuracy and complication rates of US-guided vacuum-assisted core breast biopsy: initial results. Radiology. 2000;215:694–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nakano S, Imawari Y, Mibu A, et al. Differentiating vacuum-assisted breast biopsy from core needle biopsy: is it necessary? Br J Radiol. 2018;91:20180250.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cho N, Moon WK, Cha JH, et al. Sonographically guided core biopsy of the breast: comparison of 14-gauge automated gun and 11-gauge directional vacuum-assisted biopsy methods. Korean J Radiol. 2005;6:102–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Choe J, Chikarmane SA, Giess CS. Nonmass findings at breast US: definition, classifications, and differential diagnosis. Radiographics. 2020;40:326–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Krishnamurthy S, Bevers T, Kuerer H, et al. Multidisciplinary considerations in the management of high-risk breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198:W132–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Suh YJ, Kim MJ, Kim EK, et al. Comparison of the underestimation rate in cases with ductal carcinoma in situ at ultrasound-guided core biopsy: 14-gauge automated core-needle biopsy vs 8- or 11-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy. Br J Radiol. 2012;85:e349–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Feig SA. Auditing and benchmarks in screening and diagnostic mammography. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007;45:791–800.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study received no specific grant from any funding agency.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8510, Japan

    Yuka Yashima, Tomoyuki Fujioka, Mio Mori, Arisa Sato & Ukihide Tateishi

  2. Department of Radiology, Dokkyo Medical University Saitama Medical Center, 2-1-50 Minamikoshigaya, Koshigaya, Saitama, 343-8555, Japan

    Kazunori Kubota

  3. Department of Surgery, Breast Surgery, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8510, Japan

    Goshi Oda & Tsuyoshi Nakagawa

  4. Department of Diagnostic Pathology, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, 113-8510, Japan

    Iichiroh Onishi

  5. Department of Radiology, Ome Municipal General Hospital, Tokyo, 198-0042, Japan

    Mayuko Tanaka

Authors
  1. Yuka Yashima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tomoyuki Fujioka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kazunori Kubota
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mio Mori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Arisa Sato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Goshi Oda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Tsuyoshi Nakagawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Iichiroh Onishi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Mayuko Tanaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Ukihide Tateishi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tomoyuki Fujioka.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

We declare that the authors have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

This retrospective study was approved by the medical ethics committee of our institution, which waived the requirement for written informed consent.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yashima, Y., Fujioka, T., Kubota, K. et al. Comparison of the clinical and pathological characteristics of ultrasound-guided biopsy for breast masses and non-mass lesions between 16-gauge spring-loaded core needle biopsy and 12-gauge spring-loaded vacuum-assisted biopsy. J Med Ultrasonics 50, 205–212 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10396-022-01279-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10396-022-01279-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation