Preoperative Needle Biopsy as a Potential Quality Measure in Breast Cancer Surgery

  • B. Pocock
  • B. Taback
  • L. Klein
  • K. A. Joseph
  • M. El-Tamer
Healthcare Policy and Outcomes

Abstract

Preoperative needle diagnosis (PND) is being considered as a quality measure in breast cancer surgery. This criterion has not been thoroughly evaluated in the literature. The purpose of this study is to assess ease of access to these data and rate of compliance in a tertiary care center. We retrospectively reviewed all our breast cancer cases between July 2006 and July 2007. The data were queried for preoperative needle diagnosis. Charts of patients who did not meet this criterion were reviewed to determine the cause for noncompliance. In the year 2006–2007, 396 breast cancer operations were performed (age range 19–96 years). Of 396 cases, 43 (11%) underwent a surgical procedure without diagnosis of cancer. In 19/396 (5%) cases PND was not feasible due to technical reasons. In 22/396 (5.5%) cases, preoperative needle biopsy did not render a malignant diagnosis: the pathology report was discordant with the radiological or clinical findings, or the needle biopsy result necessitated surgical resection. In only 2 of 396 cases (0.5%) was PND not attempted: an 80-year-old woman with a radiologically and clinically malignant mass, and a 43-year-old woman with a clinical and ultrasonographic suggestion of fibroadenoma. We conclude that data for preoperative needle diagnosis were easily accessible in our center. If this criterion is used as a quality measure in breast cancer surgery, 100% compliance may not be an achievable goal.

References

  1. 1.
    Hynes DM, Weaver F, Morrow M, et al. Breast cancer trends and outcomes: results from a National Department of Veterans Affairs Study. J Am Coll Surg. 2004;198:707–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    El-Tamer M, Ward BM, Schifftner T, et al. Morbidity and mortality following breast cancer surgery in women: national benchmarks for standards of care. Ann Surg. 2007;45:665–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rodstein C, Ferguson R, Cumming KM, Piedmonte MR, Lucey J, Banish A. Determinants of clean surgical wound infections for breast procedures at an oncology center. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1992;13:207–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Morrow M, Venta L, Stinson BS, et al. Prospective comparison of stereotactic core biopsy and surgical excision as diagnostic procedures for breast cancer patients. Ann Surg. 2001:233:537–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tartter PI, Kaplan J, Bleiweiss I, et al. Lumpectomy margins, reexcision, and local recurrence of breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2000;179:81–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Julian TB, et al. Decrease false-negative rate with SLNBx. NSABP-B32. San Antonio 2007, Abstract #51.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Anonymous (November 2006) The National quality Forum, “National Voluntary Consensus Standards for Diagnosis and Treatment of Breast and Colon Cancer”. http://www.qualityforum.org/pdf/cancer/txbreast-colonALLwebposting.pdf. Accessed 14 Jul 2008.
  8. 8.
    US Food and Drug Administration. Department of Health and Human Services. Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Mammography Information for mammography facility personnel, inspectors, and consumers about the implementation of the Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992 (MQSA). Available: http://www.fda.gov/CDRH/MAMMOGRAPHY. Accessed 14 Jul 2008.
  9. 9.
    Liberman L. Clinical management issues in percutaneous core breast biopsy. Radiol Clin North Am. 2000;38:791–807.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Philpotts LE, Lee CH, Horvath LI, et al. Canceled stereotactic core-needle biopsy of the breast: analysis of 89 cases. Radiology. 1997;205:423–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fajardo LL, DeAngelis GA. The role of stereotactic biopsy in abnormal mammograms. Surg Oncol Clin North Am. 1997;6:285–9.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Verkooijen HM, Peeters PH, Buskens E, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of large-core needle biopsy for nonpalpable breast disease: a meta-analysis. Br J Cancer. 2000;82:1017–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vargas HI, Agbunag RV, Khaikhali I. State of the art of minimally invasive breast biopsy: principles and practice. Breast Cancer. 2000;7:370–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lannin DR, Ponn T, Andrejeva L, et al. Should all breast cancers be diagnosed by needle biopsy? Am J Surg. 2006;192:450–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Irfan, K, Brem RF. Surgical and mammographic follow-up of papillary lesions and atypical lobular hyperplasia diagnosed with stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy. Breast J. 2002;8:230–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brem RF, Behrndt VS, Sanow L, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia: histologic underestimation of carcinoma in tissue harvested from impalpable breast lesions using 11-guage stereotactically guided directional vacuum-assisted biopsy. Am J Roentgenol. 1999;172:1405–7.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Meyer JE, Smith DN, Lester SC, et al. Large-core needle biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions. JAMA. 1999;281:1638–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liberman L, Smolkin JH, Dershaw DD, et al. Calcification retrieval at stereotactic 11-guage vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Radiology. 1998;208:251–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Pocock
    • 1
  • B. Taback
    • 1
  • L. Klein
    • 1
  • K. A. Joseph
    • 1
  • M. El-Tamer
    • 1
  1. 1.Comprehensive Breast Center, Department of SurgeryColumbia University Medical Center/Presbyterian HospitalNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations