Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

US follow-up protocol in concordant benign result after US-guided 14-gauge core needle breast biopsy

  • Clinical trial
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To determine the time when follow-up ultrasound (US) should begin for concordant benign lesions after US-guided 14-gauge core needle breast biopsy (CNB). This was an IRB–approved retrospective study, with a waiver of informed consent. Among 3,888 consecutive US-guided CNBs performed between August 2005 and March 2008, 1,492 breast masses in 1,309 women with concordant benign results and follow-up US after CNB were included. Their medical records were reviewed. Statistical comparisons for the result of first follow-up US and malignant rates among 6-month, 12-month, and long-term intervals were performed by using Fisher exact test. Results dichotomized for symptom, lesion size (10 mm), and CNB result (specific or not), were also analyzed. In 1,492 masses, seven malignancies (0.5%) were diagnosed by interval growth at first follow-up US performed at 6-month (n = 3), 12-month (n = 1), and long-term interval (n = 3). No significant difference in results of follow-up US and malignant rates was found among follow-up intervals. At 6-month interval, malignant rate in symptomatic group (1.9%, 3/162) was significantly higher than in asymptomatic group (0%, 0/819) (P = 0.004). The size of malignancy at long-term interval tended to be larger than at shorter interval, and metastasis was developed in one patient with malignancy at long-term interval. Concordant benign lesions after US-guided 14-gauge CNB should be recommended to begin US follow-up at least at 12 months to detect early-stage cancers. However, for concordant benign lesion associated with any clinical symptoms, follow-up US should begin earlier, at 6 months after CNB.

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

References

  1. Bassett LW, Mahoney MC, Apple SK (2007) Interventional breast imaging: current procedures and assessing for concordance with pathology. Radiol Clin North Am 45:881–894

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Youk JH, Kim EK, Kim MJ, Lee JY, Oh KK (2007) Missed breast cancers at US-guided core needle biopsy: how to reduce them. Radiographics 27:79–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Youk JH, Kim EK, Kim MJ, Ko KH, Kwak JY, Son EJ, Choi J, Kang HY (2011) Concordant or discordant? Imaging-pathology correlation in a sonography-guided core needle biopsy of a breast lesion. Korean J Radiol 12:232–240

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lee CH, Philpotts LE, Horvath LJ, Tocino I (1999) Follow-up of breast lesions diagnosed as benign with stereotactic core-needle biopsy: frequency of mammographic change and false-negative rate. Radiology 212:189–194

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Jackman RJ, Nowels KW, Rodriguez-Soto J, Marzoni FA Jr, Finkelstein SI, Shepard MJ (1999) Stereotactic, automated, large-core needle biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions: false-negative and histologic underestimation rates after long-term follow-up. Radiology 210:799–805

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Youk JH, Kim EK, Kim MJ, Kwak JY, Son EJ (2010) Analysis of false-negative results after US-guided 14-gauge core needle breast biopsy. Eur Radiol 20:782–789

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Acheson MB, Patton RG, Howisey RL, Lane RF, Morgan A, Rowbotham RK (2002) Three- to six-year followup for 379 benign image-guided large-core needle biopsies of nonpalpable breast abnormalities. J Am Coll Surg 195:462–466

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Salkowski LR, Fowler AM, Burnside ES, Sisney GA (2011) Utility of 6-month follow-up imaging after a concordant benign breast biopsy result. Radiology 258:380–387

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Liberman L, Drotman M, Morris EA, LaTrenta LR, Abramson AF, Zakowski MF, Dershaw DD (2000) Imaging-histologic discordance at percutaneous breast biopsy. Cancer 89:2538–2546

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Berg WA (2004) Image-guided breast biopsy and management of high-risk lesions. Radiol Clin N Am 42:935–946

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Schoonjans JM, Brem RF (2001) Fourteen-gauge ultrasonographically guided large-core needle biopsy of breast masses. J Ultrasound Med 20:967–972

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Crystal P, Koretz M, Shcharynsky S, Makarov V, Strano S (2005) Accuracy of sonographically guided 14-gauge core-needle biopsy: results of 715 consecutive breast biopsies with at least two-year follow-up of benign lesions. J Clin Ultrasound 33:47–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Li J, Dershaw DD, Lee CH, Kaplan J, Morris EA (2009) MRI follow-up after concordant, histologically benign diagnosis of breast lesions sampled by MRI-guided biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:850–855

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Schueller G, Jaromi S, Ponhold L, Fuchsjaeger M, Memarsadeghi M, Rudas M, Weber M, Liberman L, Helbich TH (2008) US-guided 14-gauge core-needle breast biopsy: results of a validation study in 1352 cases. Radiology 248:406–413

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sickles EA (1995) Management of probably benign breast lesions. Radiol Clin North Am 33:1123–1130

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Vizcaino I, Gadea L, Andreo L, Salas D, Ruiz-Perales F, Cuevas D, Herranz C, Bueno F (2001) Short-term follow-up results in 795 nonpalpable probably benign lesions detected at screening mammography. Radiology 219:475–483

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Varas X, Leborgne JH, Leborgne F, Mezzera J, Jaumandreu S (2002) Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:691–695

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Raza S, Goldkamp AL, Chikarmane SA, Birdwell RL (2010) US of breast masses categorized as BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5: pictorial review of factors influencing clinical management. Radiographics 30:1199–1213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Graf O, Helbich TH, Fuchsjaeger MH, Hopf G, Morgun M, Graf C, Mallek R, Sickles EA (2004) Follow-up of palpable circumscribed noncalcified solid breast masses at mammography and US: can biopsy be averted? Radiology 233:850–856

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tabar L, Duffy SW, Vitak B, Chen HH, Prevost TC (1999) The natural history of breast carcinoma: what have we learned from screening? Cancer 86:449–462

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Michaelson JS, Silverstein M, Wyatt J, Weber G, Moore R, Halpern E, Kopans DB, Hughes K (2002) Predicting the survival of patients with breast carcinoma using tumor size. Cancer 95:713–723

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Feig SA (2005) Current status of screening US. In: Feig SA (ed) 2005 Syllabus: categorical course in diagnostic radiology-breast imaging. Radiological Society of North America, Oak Brook, pp 143–154

    Google Scholar 

  23. Starvros AT (2004) False-negative and false-positive examinations. In: McAllister L, Donnellan K, Martin SP, Rothschild R (eds) Breast ultrasound. Lippincott Willams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 947–978

    Google Scholar 

  24. Goodman KA, Birdwell RL, Ikeda DM (1998) Compliance with recommended follow-up after percutaneous breast core biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 170:89–92

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Andrykowski MA, Carpenter JS, Studts JL, Cordova MJ, Cunningham LL, Mager W, Sloan D, Kenady D, McGrath P (2001) Adherence to recommendations for clinical follow-up after benign breast biopsy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 69:165–178

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Chang SD, Abrahams Z, Gordon PB (2005) Patient compliance with recommended follow-up after fine-needle aspiration biopsy of solid breast masses. Can Assoc Radiol J 56:36–39

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Pal S, Ikeda DM, Birdwell RL (1996) Compliance with recommended follow-up after fine-needle aspiration biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions: a retrospective study. Radiology 201:71–74

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seodaemun-ku, Shinchon-dong 134, Seoul, 120-752, South Korea

    Ji Hyun Youk, Eun-Kyung Kim, Min Jung Kim, Eun Ju Son, Hee Jung Moon & Jin Young Kwak

  2. Department of Biostatistics, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea

    Inkyung Jung

Authors
  1. Ji Hyun Youk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Inkyung Jung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eun-Kyung Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Min Jung Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Eun Ju Son
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hee Jung Moon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jin Young Kwak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eun-Kyung Kim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Youk, J.H., Jung, I., Kim, EK. et al. US follow-up protocol in concordant benign result after US-guided 14-gauge core needle breast biopsy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 132, 1089–1097 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1951-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1951-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation