Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

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

  • Healthcare Policy and Outcomes
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Julian TB, et al. Decrease false-negative rate with SLNBx. NSABP-B32. San Antonio 2007, Abstract #51.

  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. 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. Liberman L. Clinical management issues in percutaneous core breast biopsy. Radiol Clin North Am. 2000;38:791–807.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Fajardo LL, DeAngelis GA. The role of stereotactic biopsy in abnormal mammograms. Surg Oncol Clin North Am. 1997;6:285–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Meyer JE, Smith DN, Lester SC, et al. Large-core needle biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions. JAMA. 1999;281:1638–41.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Liberman L, Smolkin JH, Dershaw DD, et al. Calcification retrieval at stereotactic 11-guage vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Radiology. 1998;208:251–60.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. El-Tamer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pocock, B., Taback, B., Klein, L. et al. Preoperative Needle Biopsy as a Potential Quality Measure in Breast Cancer Surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 16, 1108–1111 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-008-0188-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-008-0188-4

Keywords

Navigation