Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to describe the safety and efficacy of 9G needle biopsy under tomosynthesis guidance with the patient in the prone position.
Materials and methods
This is a retrospective observational study conducted on patients with non-palpable breast mass exclusively detectable through tomosynthesis, performed from the 1st January 2018 to the 1st August 2020. The procedures were performed by taking 12 tissue samples from each mass. The evaluated technical success was considered as a conclusive sample for histological diagnosis. We performed a comparison between the procedural data of interventions in patients who have a lesion < or = 10 mm and > 10 mm and between high-contrast and low-contrast masses. The histological data of the samples were analyzed.
Results
Five hundred biopsies of the total 1500 performed from the 1st January 2018 to the 1st August 2020 were included in the study; repetitions for inadequate withdrawal occurred 0.4% (3/500). No major complications have ever been observed. Two cases (0.2%) of minor bleeding were observed with self-limited bleeding from the skin breach at 90 min without clinical sequelae in an asymptomatic patient. The biopsy samples showed carcinoma in 55.2% (276/500).
Conclusion
Our study suggests that the 9G needle sampling biopsy procedure through tomosynthesis guide with prone patient is a safe and effective procedure for the characterization of indeterminate breast mass.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of data, material and code availability
All the authors declare that there are availability of data, material and code availability.
References
Campanile F et al (2012) Duodenal involvement by breast cancer. Breast J 18(6):615–616
Ciatto S et al (2013) Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 14:583–589
Devaraj S et al (2011) Axillary ultrasound in invasive breast cancer: experience of our surgeons. Breast J 17:191–195
Dowlatshahi K et al (1991) Nonpalpable breast lesions: findings of stereotaxic needle-core biopsy and fine-needle aspiration cytology. Radiology 181:745
Garg S et al (2007) A comparative analysis of core needle biopsy and fine-needle aspiration cytology in the evaluation of palpable and mammographically detected suspicious breast lesions. Diagn Cytopathol 35:681–689
Giurazza F et al (2019) Safety and effectiveness of ultrasound-guided percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage: a multicenter experience. J Ultrasound 22(4):437–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40477-019-00399-w (Epub 2019 Jul 31)
Haas BM et al (2013) Comparison of tomosynthesis plu digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology 269:694–700
Horvat JV et al (2019) Calcifications at digital breast tomosynthesis: imaging features and biopsy techniques. Radiographics 39(2):307–318. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2019180124 (Epub 2019 Jan 25)
Landercasper J et al (2011) Contemporary breast imaging and concordance assessment: a surgical perspective. Surg Clin North Am 91:33–58
Liberman L et al (1998) Calcification retrieval at stereotactic, 11-gauge, directional, vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Radiology 208(1):251–260
Maughan KL et al (2010) Treatment of breast cancer. Am Fam Physician 81(11):1339–1346
Omofoye TS et al (2017) Implementation of upright digital breast tomosynthesis-guided stereotactic biopsy. Acad Radiol 24:1451–1455
Ortenzia O, et al (2018) Physical characterisation of four different commercial digital breast tomosynthesis systems. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 181(3):277–289. https://doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncy024
Parker SH et al (1993) US-guided automated large-core breast biopsy. Radiology 187(2):507–511
Rafferty EA et al (2013) Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology 266:104–113
Rakha EA et al (2007) An overview of assessment of prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer needle core biopsy specimens. J Clin Pathol 60:1300–1306
Rose SL et al (2013) Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:1401–1408
Schrading S et al (2015) Digital breast tomosynthesis-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: initial experiences and comparison with prone stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy. Radiology 274:654–662
Shin K et al (2018) Tomosynthesis-guided core biopsy of the breast: why and how to use it. J Clin Imaging Sci 8:28. https://doi.org/10.4103/jcis.JCIS_10_18 (eCollection 2018)
Skaane P et al (2013) Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population- based screening program. Radiology 267:47–56
Slanetz PJ et al (2017) Tomosynthesis-directed coaxial core biopsy of tomosynthesis-detected architectural distortion: indications and logistics. Can Assoc Radiol J. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carj.2016.11.001
Stomper PC (2000) Atlas of breast cancer. In: Hayes DF (ed) Breast imaging. Mosby, Philadelphia
Tabár L et al (2011) Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology 260(3):658–663
Veronesi U et al (2005) Breast cancer. Lancet 365(9472):1727–1741. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66546-4
Waldherr C et al (2016) Tomosynthesis-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: a feasibility study. Eur Radiol 26:1582e9
Funding
The authors state that no funding has been received for the scientific paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All the authors participated in the creation of the paper.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All the authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
Ethics approval
The paper is approved.
Consent to participate
All the authors declare that they consent to participate.
Consent for publication
All the authors declare that they consent for publication.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Catelli, A., Santoro, A., Antignani, E. et al. Safety and efficacy of tomosynthesis-guided breast biopsies in the prone position: monocentric study and review of the literature. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 148, 967–974 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-021-03674-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-021-03674-8