Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 4/2014

01-04-2014 | Breast

Cancelled stereotactic biopsy of calcifications not seen using the stereotactic technique: do we still need to biopsy?

Authors: Sandra B. Brennan, Donna D’Alessio, Laura Liberman, Dilip Giri, Edi Brogi, Elizabeth A. Morris

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 4/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

To determine the frequency of cancelled stereotactic biopsy due to non-visualisation of calcifications, and assess associated features and outcome data.

Methods

A retrospective review was performed on 1,874 patients scheduled for stereotactic-guided breast biopsy from 2009 to 2011. Medical records and imaging studies were reviewed.

Results

Of 1,874 stereotactic biopsies, 76 (4 %) were cancelled because of non-visualisation of calcifications. Prompt histological confirmation was obtained in 42/76 (55 %). In 28/76 (37 %) follow-up mammography was performed, and 7/28 subsequently underwent biopsy. Of 27 without biopsy, 21 (78 %) had follow-up. Nine cancers (9/49, 18 %) were found: 6 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), 3 infiltrating ductal carcinoma (IDC). Of 54 patients with either biopsy or at least 2 years’ follow-up, 9 (17 %) had cancer (95 % CI 8–29). Cancer was present in 7/42 (17 %, 95 % CI 7–31 %) lesions that had prompt histological confirmation (DCIS = 5, IDC = 2) and in 2/28 (7 %, 95 % CI 0.8–24 %) lesions referred for follow-up (DCIS = 1, IDC = 1). Neither calcification morphology (P = 0.2), patient age (P = 0.7), breast density (P = 1.0), personal history (P = 1.0) nor family history of breast cancer (P = 0.5) had a significant association with cancer.

Conclusion

Calcifications not visualised on the stereotactic unit are not definitely benign and require surgical biopsy or follow-up. No patient or morphological features were predictive of cancer.

Key points

Half of cancelled stereotactic biopsies were due to non-visualisation of calcified foci.
This reflects the improved detection of calcifications by digital mammography.
Calcifications too faint for the stereotactic technique require alternative biopsy or follow-up
17 % of patients with biopsy or at least 2 yearsfollow-up had cancer.
No patient/morphological features were found to aid selection for re-biopsy vs. follow-up.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Fischer U (2002) Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography. Eur Radiol 12:2679–2683PubMed Fischer U (2002) Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography. Eur Radiol 12:2679–2683PubMed
2.
go back to reference Del Turco MR (2007) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:860–866PubMedCrossRef Del Turco MR (2007) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:860–866PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Suryanarayanan S (2002) Flat-panel digital mammography system: contrast-detail comparison between screen-film radiographs and hard-copy images. Radiology 225:801–807PubMedCrossRef Suryanarayanan S (2002) Flat-panel digital mammography system: contrast-detail comparison between screen-film radiographs and hard-copy images. Radiology 225:801–807PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Hambly NM (2009) Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening program. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:1010–1018PubMedCrossRef Hambly NM (2009) Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening program. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:1010–1018PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Feeley L (2011) Digital mammography in a screening programme and its implications for pathology: a comparative study. J Clin Pathol 64:215–219PubMedCrossRef Feeley L (2011) Digital mammography in a screening programme and its implications for pathology: a comparative study. J Clin Pathol 64:215–219PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Weigel S (2010) Calcifications in digital mammographic screening: improvement of early detection of invasive breast cancers? Radiology 255:738–745PubMedCrossRef Weigel S (2010) Calcifications in digital mammographic screening: improvement of early detection of invasive breast cancers? Radiology 255:738–745PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Bluekens AM (2012) Comparison of digital screening mammography and screen-film mammography in the early detection of clinically relevant cancers: a multicenter study. Radiology 265:707–714PubMedCrossRef Bluekens AM (2012) Comparison of digital screening mammography and screen-film mammography in the early detection of clinically relevant cancers: a multicenter study. Radiology 265:707–714PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A (2007) Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. Radiology 244:708–717PubMedCrossRef Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A (2007) Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. Radiology 244:708–717PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Philpotts LE (1997) Canceled stereotactic core-needle biopsy of the breast: analysis of 89 cases. Radiology 205:423–428PubMed Philpotts LE (1997) Canceled stereotactic core-needle biopsy of the breast: analysis of 89 cases. Radiology 205:423–428PubMed
10.
go back to reference D'Orsi CJ et al (2003) BI-RADS: Mammography 4th edition. In: D’Orsi CJ, Mendelson EB, Ikeda DM et al (eds) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: ACR BI-RADS breast imaging atlas. American College of Radiology, Reston D'Orsi CJ et al (2003) BI-RADS: Mammography 4th edition. In: D’Orsi CJ, Mendelson EB, Ikeda DM et al (eds) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: ACR BI-RADS breast imaging atlas. American College of Radiology, Reston
11.
go back to reference Lentner C (ed) (1982) “Exact” confidence limits for p. In: Introduction to statistics, statistical tables, mathematical formulae; Geigy scientific tables, vol 2. Ciba-Geigy, Basel, pp 89–102 Lentner C (ed) (1982) “Exact” confidence limits for p. In: Introduction to statistics, statistical tables, mathematical formulae; Geigy scientific tables, vol 2. Ciba-Geigy, Basel, pp 89–102
12.
13.
go back to reference Liberman L et al (1995) Impact of stereotaxic core breast biopsy on cost of diagnosis. Radiology 195:633–637PubMed Liberman L et al (1995) Impact of stereotaxic core breast biopsy on cost of diagnosis. Radiology 195:633–637PubMed
14.
go back to reference Liberman L, Sama MP (2000) Cost-effectiveness of stereotactic 11-gauge directional vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175:53–58PubMedCrossRef Liberman L, Sama MP (2000) Cost-effectiveness of stereotactic 11-gauge directional vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175:53–58PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Hillner BE, Bear HD, Fajardo LL (1996) Estimating the cost-effectiveness of stereotaxic biopsy for nonpalpable breast abnormalities: a decision analysis model. Acad Radiol 3:351–360PubMedCrossRef Hillner BE, Bear HD, Fajardo LL (1996) Estimating the cost-effectiveness of stereotaxic biopsy for nonpalpable breast abnormalities: a decision analysis model. Acad Radiol 3:351–360PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Lee CH et al (1997) Cost-effectiveness of stereotactic core needle biopsy: analysis by means of mammographic findings. Radiology 202:849–854PubMed Lee CH et al (1997) Cost-effectiveness of stereotactic core needle biopsy: analysis by means of mammographic findings. Radiology 202:849–854PubMed
17.
go back to reference Krug KB et al (2011) Image quality of digital direct flat-panel mammography versus an indirect small-field CCD technique using a high-contrast phantom. Int J Breast Cancer 2011:701054PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Krug KB et al (2011) Image quality of digital direct flat-panel mammography versus an indirect small-field CCD technique using a high-contrast phantom. Int J Breast Cancer 2011:701054PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Cancelled stereotactic biopsy of calcifications not seen using the stereotactic technique: do we still need to biopsy?
Authors
Sandra B. Brennan
Donna D’Alessio
Laura Liberman
Dilip Giri
Edi Brogi
Elizabeth A. Morris
Publication date
01-04-2014
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 4/2014
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-3055-z

Other articles of this Issue 4/2014

European Radiology 4/2014 Go to the issue