Top

Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -)

Published in:

01-11-2018 | Original Article

A comparison of diagnostic performance of vacuum-assisted biopsy and core needle biopsy for breast microcalcification: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Authors: Xu Chen Huang, Xu Hua Hu, Xiao Ran Wang, Chao Xi Zhou, Fei Fei Wang, Shan Yang, Gui Ying Wang

Published in: Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -) | Issue 4/2018

Abstract

Background

Core needle biopsy (CNB) and vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) are both popularly used breast percutaneous biopsies. Both of them have become reliable alternatives to open surgical biopsy (OSB) for breast microcalcification (BM).

Aims

It is controversial that which biopsy method is more accurate and safer for BM. Hence, we conducted this meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic performance between CNB and VAB for BM, aiming to find out the better method.

Methods

Articles according with including and excluding criteria were collected from the databases, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Preset outcomes were abstracted and pooled to find out the potential advantages in CNB or VAB.

Results

Seven studies were identified and entered final meta-analysis from initially found 138 studies. The rate of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) underestimation was significantly lower in VAB than CNB group [risk ratio (RR) = 1.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40 to 2.40, p < 0.001]. The microcalcification retrieval rate was significantly higher in VAB than CNB group (RR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98, p = 0.02), while CNB owned a significantly lower complication rate than VAB (RR = 0.18, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.93, p = 0.04). The atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) underestimation rates were not compared for the limited number of studies reporting this outcome.

Conclusions

Compared with CNB, VAB shows better diagnostic performance in DCIS underestimation rate and microcalcification retrieval rate. However, CNB shows a significantly lower complication rate. More studies are needed to verify these findings.

Nagini S (2017) Breast cancer: current molecular therapeutic targets and new players. Anti Cancer Agents Med Chem 17(2):152–163. https://doi.org/10.2174/1871520616666160502122724 CrossRef

Sharma T, Radosevich JA, Pachori G, Mandal CC (2016) A molecular view of pathological microcalcification in breast cancer. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 21(1–2):25–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10911-015-9349-9 CrossRefPubMed

Jackman RJ, Rodriguez-Soto J (2006) Breast microcalcifications: retrieval failure at prone stereotactic core and vacuum breast biopsy—frequency, causes, and outcome. Radiology 239(1):61–70. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2383041953 CrossRefPubMed

Fahrbach K, Sledge I, Cella C, Linz H, Ross SD (2006) A comparison of the accuracy of two minimally invasive breast biopsy methods: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 274(2):63–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-005-0106-y CrossRefPubMed

Philpotts LE, Hooley RJ, Lee CH (2003) Comparison of automated versus vacuum-assisted biopsy methods for sonographically guided core biopsy of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180(2):347–351. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.180.2.1800347 CrossRefPubMed

Bundred SM, Maxwell AJ, Morris J, Lim YY, Harake MDJ, Whiteside S, Bundred NJ (2016) Randomized controlled trial of stereotactic 11-G vacuum-assisted core biopsy for the diagnosis and management of mammographic microcalcification. Br J Radiol 89(1058):20150504. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20150504 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, Leeflang MM, Sterne JA, Bossuyt PM, QUADAS-2 Group (2011) QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155(8):529–536. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 CrossRefPubMed

Verkooijen HM, Peeters PH, Buskens E et al (2000) Diagnostic accuracy of large-core needle biopsy for nonpalpable breast disease: a meta-analysis. Br J Cancer 82(5):1017–1021. https://doi.org/10.1054/bjoc.1999.1036 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Seo M, Chang JM, Kim WH, Park IA, Lee SH, Cho N, Moon WK (2013) Columnar cell lesions without atypia initially diagnosed on breast needle biopsies: is imaging follow-up enough? AJR Am J Roentgenol 201(4):928–934. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.9906 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Lacambra MD, Lam CC, Mendoza P, Chan SK, Yu AM, Tsang JYS, Tan PH, Tse GM (2012) Biopsy sampling of breast lesions: comparison of core needle- and vacuum-assisted breast biopsies. Breast Cancer Res Treat 132(3):917–923. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1639-3 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Deshaies I, Provencher L, Jacob S, Côté G, Robert J, Desbiens C, Poirier B, Hogue JC, Vachon É, Diorio C (2011) Factors associated with upgrading to malignancy at surgery of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed on core biopsy. Breast 20(1):50–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2010.06.004 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Ko E, Han W, Lee JW, Cho J, Kim EK, Jung SY, Kang MJ, Moon WK, Park IA, Kim SW, Kim KS, Lee ES, Min KH, Kim SW, Noh DY (2008) Scoring system for predicting malignancy in patients diagnosed with atypical ductal hyperplasia at ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 112(1):189–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-007-9824-0 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Houssami N, Ciatto S, Ellis I, Ambrogetti D (2007) Underestimation of malignancy of breast core-needle biopsy: concepts and precise overall and category-specific estimates. Cancer 109(3):487–495. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.22435 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Al-Attar MA, Michell MJ, Ralleigh G et al (2006) The impact of image guided needle biopsy on the outcome of mammographically detected indeterminate microcalcification. Breast 15(5):635–639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2005.12.004 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Cho N, Moon WK, Cha JH, Kim SM, Kim SJ, Lee SH, Chung HK, Cho KS, Park IA, Noh DY (2005) Sonographically guided core biopsy of the breast: comparison of 14-gauge automated gun and 11-gauge directional vacuum-assisted biopsy methods. Korean J Radiol 6(2):102–109. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2005.6.2.102 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Hui JY, Chan LK, Chan RL et al (2002) Prone table stereotactic breast biopsy. Hong Kong Med J 8(6):447–451PubMed

17.

Brenner RJ, Jackman RJ, Parker SH, Evans WP III, Philpotts L, Deutch BM, Lechner MC, Lehrer D, Sylvan P, Hunt R, Adler SJ, Forcier N (2002) Percutaneous core needle biopsy of radial scars of the breast: when is excision necessary? AJR Am J Roentgenol 179(5):1179–1184. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.179.5.1791179 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Jackman RJ, Burbank F, Parker SH, Evans WP 3rd, Lechner MC, Richardson TR, Tocino I, Wray AB (1997) Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at stereotactic breast biopsy: improved reliability with 14-gauge, directional, vacuum-assisted biopsy. Radiology 204(2):485–488. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.204.2.9240540 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Burbank F (1997) Stereotactic breast biopsy of atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ lesions: improved accuracy with directional, vacuum-assisted biopsy. Radiology 202(3):843–847. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.202.3.9051043 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Ciatto S, Houssami N, Ambrogetti D, Bianchi S, Bonardi R, Brancato B, Catarzi S, Risso GG (2007) Accuracy and underestimation of malignancy of breast core needle biopsy: the Florence experience of over 4000 consecutive biopsies. Breast Cancer Res Treat 101(3):291–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-006-9289-6 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Liberman L, Gougoutas CA, Zakowski MF, LaTrenta LR, Abramson AF, Morris EA, Dershaw DD (2001) Calcifications highly suggestive of malignancy: comparison of breast biopsy methods. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177(1):165–172. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.177.1.1770165 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Stolier AJ (1997) Stereotactic breast biopsy: a surgical series. J Am Coll Surg 185(3):224–228CrossRefPubMed

23.

Kumaroswamy V, Liston J, Shaaban AM (2008) Vacuum assisted stereotactic guided mammotome biopsies in the management of screen detected microcalcifications: experience of a large breast screening centre. J Clin Pathol 61(6):766–769. https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.2007.054130 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Jang M, Cho N, Moon WK, Park JS, Seong MH, Park IA (2008) Underestimation of atypical ductal hyperplasia at sonographically guided core biopsy of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191(5):1347–1351. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.3643 CrossRefPubMed

25.

Lee CH, Carter D, Philpotts LE et al (2000) Ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed with stereotactic core needle biopsy: can invasion be predicted? Radiology 217(2):466–470CrossRefPubMed

26.

Darling ML, Smith DN, Lester SC et al (2000) Atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ as revealed by large-core needle breast biopsy: results of surgical excision. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175(5):1341–1346. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.175.5.1751341 CrossRefPubMed

27.

Philpotts LE, Shaheen NA, Carter D, Lange RC, Lee CH (1999) Comparison of rebiopsy rates after stereotactic core needle biopsy of the breast with 11-gauge vacuum suction probe versus 14-gauge needle and automatic gun. AJR Am J Roentgenol 172(3):683–687. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.172.3.10063860 CrossRefPubMed

28.

Meyer JE, Smith DN, Lester SC et al (1999) Large-core needle biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions. JAMA 281(17):1638–1641CrossRefPubMed

29.

Jackman RJ, Marzoni FA Jr, Nowels KW (1998) Percutaneous removal of benign mammographic lesions: comparison of automated large-core and directional vacuum-assisted stereotactic biopsy techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol 171(5):1325–1330. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.171.5.9798873 CrossRefPubMed

30.

Meyer JE, Smith DN, DiPiro PJ et al (1997) Stereotactic breast biopsy of clustered microcalcifications with a directional, vacuum-assisted device. Radiology 204(2):575–576. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.204.2.9240556 CrossRefPubMed

31.

Bae S, Yoon JH, Moon HJ, Kim MJ, Kim EK (2015) Breast microcalcifications: diagnostic outcomes according to image-guided biopsy method. Korean J Radiol 16(5):996–1005. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2015.16.5.996 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Ye L, Wang L, Deng Y (2013) Comparison of the underestimation rate in cases with ductal carcinoma in situ at ultrasound-guided core biopsy: 14-gauge automated core-needle biopsy vs 11-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy. Chin Ger J Clin Oncol 12(5):228–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10330-013-1159-1 CrossRef

33.

Suh YJ, Kim MJ, Kim EK, Moon HJ, Kwak JY, Koo HR, Yoon JH (2012) 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 85(1016):e349–e356. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/30974918 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Huang PC, Cheung YC, Lo YF et al (2011) A comparison of spring-loaded and vacuum-assisted techniques for stereotactic breast biopsy of impalpable microcalcification lesions: experience at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou. Chang Gung Med J 34(1):75–83PubMed

35.

Jackman RJ, Burbank F, Parker SH, Evans WP III, Lechner MC, Richardson TR, Smid AA, Borofsky HB, Lee CH, Goldstein HM, Schilling KJ, Wray AB, Brem RF, Helbich TH, Lehrer DE, Adler SJ (2001) Stereotactic breast biopsy of nonpalpable lesions: determinants of ductal carcinoma in situ underestimation rates. Radiology 218(2):497–502. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.218.2.r01fe35497 CrossRefPubMed

36.

Won B, Reynolds HE, Lazaridis CL, Jackson VP (1999) Stereotactic biopsy of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast using an 11-gauge vacuum-assisted device: persistent underestimation of disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 173(1):227–229. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.173.1.10397131 CrossRefPubMed

37.

Zhang YJ, Wei L, Li J, Zheng YQ, Li XR (2013) Status quo and development trend of breast biopsy technology. Gland Surg 2(1):15–24. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2227-684X.2013.02.01 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

O'Flynn EA, Wilson AR, Michell MJ (2010) Image-guided breast biopsy: state-of-the-art. Clin Radiol 65(4):259–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2010.01.008 CrossRefPubMed

39.

Berg WA, Krebs TL, Campassi C, Magder LS, Sun CC (1997) Evaluation of 14- and 11-gauge directional, vacuum-assisted biopsy probes and 14-gauge biopsy guns in a breast parenchymal model. Radiology 205(1):203–208. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.205.1.9314986 CrossRefPubMed

40.

Lomoschitz FM, Helbich TH, Rudas M, Pfarl G, Linnau KF, Stadler A, Jackman RJ (2004) Stereotactic 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: influence of number of specimens on diagnostic accuracy. Radiology 232(3):897–903. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2323031224 CrossRefPubMed

41.

Lourenco AP, Mainiero MB, Lazarus E, Giri D, Schepps B (2007) Stereotactic breast biopsy: comparison of histologic underestimation rates with 11- and 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189(5):W275–W279. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.07.2165 CrossRefPubMed

42.

Brem RF, Schoonjans JM, Goodman SN, Nolten A, Askin FB, Gatewood OMB (2001) Nonpalpable breast cancer: percutaneous diagnosis with 11- and 8-gauge stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy devices. Radiology 219(3):793–796. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.219.3.r01jn34793 CrossRefPubMed

43.

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(1):79–94. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.271065029 CrossRefPubMed

44.

Liberman L, Dershaw DD, Rosen PP, Abramson AF, Deutch BM, Hann LE (1994) Stereotaxic 14-gauge breast biopsy: how many core biopsy specimens are needed? Radiology 192(3):793–795. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.192.3.8058949 CrossRefPubMed

45.

Cheung YC, Juan YH, Ueng SH, Lo YF, Huang PC, Lin YC, Chen SC (2015) Assessment of breast specimens with or without calcifications in diagnosing malignant and atypia for mammographic breast microcalcifications without mass: a STARD-compliant diagnostic accuracy article. Medicine 94(42):e1832. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000001832 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

46.

Szynglarewicz B, Matkowski R, Kasprzak P, Forgacz J, Zolnierek A, Halon A, Kornafel J (2011) Pain experienced by patients during minimal-invasive ultrasound-guided breast biopsy: vacuum-assisted vs core-needle procedure. Eur J Surg Oncol 37(5):398–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2011.02.002 CrossRefPubMed

47.

Seely JM, Hill F, Peddle S, Lau J (2017) An evaluation of patient experience during percutaneous breast biopsy. Eur Radiol 27(11):4804–4811. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4872-2 CrossRefPubMed

48.

Grady I, Vasquez T, Tawfik S, Grady S (2017) Ultrasound-guided core-needle versus vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: a cost analysis based on the American Society of Breast Surgeons’ Mastery of Breast Surgery Registry. Ann Surg Oncol 24(3):676–682. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5607-3 CrossRefPubMed

49.

Fernandez-Garcia P, Marco-Domenech SF, Lizan-Tudela L et al (2017) The cost effectiveness of vacuum-assisted versus core-needle versus surgical biopsy of breast lesions. Australas Radiol 59(1):40–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rx.2016.09.006 CrossRef

50.

Chamming's F, Chopier J, Mathelin C, Chéreau E (2015) Explorations of breast microcalcifications: guidelines. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 44(10):960–969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgyn.2015.09.038 CrossRef

51.

Bent CK, Bassett LW, D'Orsi CJ, Sayre JW (2010) The positive predictive value of BI-RADS microcalcification descriptors and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194(5):1378–1383. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.3423 CrossRefPubMed

Title: A comparison of diagnostic performance of vacuum-assisted biopsy and core needle biopsy for breast microcalcification: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors: Xu Chen Huang
Xu Hua Hu
Xiao Ran Wang
Chao Xi Zhou
Fei Fei Wang
Shan Yang
Gui Ying Wang
Publication date: 01-11-2018
Publisher: Springer London
Published in: Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -) / Issue 4/2018
Print ISSN: 0021-1265
Electronic ISSN: 1863-4362
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-018-1781-6

Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Reserve your place

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin

Prof. Florian Limbourg

Prof. Anoop Chauhan

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Pediatric Cardiology Video

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

Cardiopulmonary Comorbidity Video

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Valvular Heart Disease Video

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Heart Failure Video

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Heart Failure Video

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.

Watch now

Semaglutide benefits people with type 2 diabetes and obesity-related heart failure

16-04-2024 Type 2 Diabetes News

Incentivised to exercise

11-04-2024 Lifestyle Modifications News

New intervention for STEMI-related cardiogenic shock

10-04-2024 Myocardial Infarction News

» View more highlights on the ACC 2024 congress hub page

Image Credits

Illustration of figure on mountain summit/© Orapun / Stock.adobe.com, STEP AAG HeroTeaserCollection image/© Tarek / Generated with AI / Stock.adobe.com, ACC 2024 Pediatric and Congenital Heart Disease: Year in Review/© 2024 American College of Cardiology, ACC 2024 Pulmonary Vascular Disease: Year in Review/© 2024 American College of Cardiology, ACC 2024 Valvular Heart Disease: Year in Review/© 2024 American College of Cardiology, ACC 2024 HF and Cardiomyopathies: Year in Review/© 2024 American College of Cardiology, Woman out walking/© Seventyfour / stock.adobe.com (symbolic image with model), Woman checking smartwatch /© saltdium / stock.adobe.com (symbolic image with model), Cardiac catheterization/© Damian / stock.adobe.com

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Aims

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2018

Quality of information on the Internet—has a decade made a difference?

Festschrift for Ronan O’Connell: pouchitis, ulcerative colitis and the microbiome

Festschrift for Patrick Ronan (PR) O’Connell (also known as ROCON): reconciling surgery and science

Child Art Psychotherapy in CAMHS in Ireland—a parent satisfaction study

An animal model of faecal incontinence and sacral neuromodulation

Neurological autoantibodies in drug-resistant epilepsy of unknown cause

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage