Top

Published in:

01-04-2010 | Clinical Trial

Diagnostic value of vacuum-assisted breast biopsy for breast carcinoma: a meta-analysis and systematic review

Authors: Ying-Hua Yu, Chi Liang, Xi-Zi Yuan

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 2/2010

Abstract

As mammography screening has its limitation in diagnosis in breast carcinoma, minimally invasive procedures offer a better option. We conducted a systematic review to establish the overall value of Vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VAB) for the diagnosis of breast cancer. After a review and quality assessment of 21 studies, sensitivity, specificity and other measures of accuracy of VAB for evaluating breast lesions were pooled using random-effects models. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves were used to summarize overall accuracy. Underestimate rate of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) were also calculated. The summary estimates for VAB in diagnosis of breast carcinoma were as follows: sensitivity, 0.981 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.972–0.987); specificity, 0.999 (95% CI, 0.997–0.999); positive likelihood ratio (PLR), 93.84 (95% CI, 41.55–211.95); negative likelihood ratio, 0.05 (95% CI, 0.03–0.09); diagnostic odds ratio, 1891.7 (95% CI, 683.8–5233.4); underestimate rate of ADH and DCIS were 20.9% (95% CI, 0.177–0.245) and 11.2% (95% CI, 0.098–0.128), respectively. VAB is a highly sensitive and specific biopsy method for evaluating mammographically detected breast in women. To be on the safe side, the diagnosis of ADH in VAB warrants surgical excision.

Gotzsche PC, Olsen O (2000) Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? Lancet 355:129–134CrossRefPubMed

Olsen O, Gotzsche PC (2001) Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet 358:1340–1342CrossRefPubMed

Elmore JG, Moceri VM, Barton MB, Polk S, Arena PJ, Fletcher SW (1998) Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med 338:1089–1096CrossRefPubMed

Kopans DB (1992) The positive predictive value of mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 158:521–526PubMed

Brett J, Austoker J, Ong G (1998) Do women who undergo further investigation for breast screening suffer adverse psychological consequences? A multi-centre follow-up study comparing different breast screening result groups five months after their last screening appointment. J Public Health Med 20:396–403PubMed

Lidbrink E, Elfving J, Frisell J, Jonsson E (1996) Neglected aspects of false positive findings of mammography in breast cancer screening: analysis of false positive cases from the Stockholm trial. BMJ 312:273–276PubMed

Lowe JB, Balanda KP, Del Mar C, Hawes E (1999) Psychologic distress in women with abnormal findings in mass mammography screening. Cancer 85:1114–1118CrossRefPubMed

Pisano ED, Fajardo LL, Tsimikas J et al (1998) Rate of insufficient samples for fine-needle aspiration for nonpalpable breast lesions in a multicenter clinical trial: the Radiologic Diagnostic Oncology Group 5 Study. The RDOG5 investigators. Cancer 82:679–688CrossRefPubMed

Ciatto S, Brancato B, Risso G et al (2007) Accuracy of fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) of axillary lymph nodes as a triage test in breast cancer staging. Breast Cancer Res Treat 103:85–91CrossRefPubMed

10.

Mueller-Holzner E, Frede T, Daniaux M et al (2007) Ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy of the breast: does frozen section give an accurate diagnosis? Breast Cancer Res Treat 106(3):399–406CrossRefPubMed

11.

Verkooijen HM, Peeters PHM, Buskens E et al (2000) Diagnostic accuracy of large-core needle biopsy for nonpalpable breast disease: a meta-analysis. Br J Cancer 82(5):1017–1021CrossRefPubMed

12.

Verkooijen HM, Borel Rinkes IH, Peeters PH et al (2001) Impact of stereotactic large-core needle biopsy on diagnosis and surgical treatment of nonpalpable breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 27:244–249CrossRefPubMed

13.

Liberman L, Dershaw DD, Glassman JR et al (1997) Analysis of cancers not diagnosed at stereotactic core breast biopsy. Radiology 203:151–157PubMed

14.

Brenner RJ, Fajardo L, Fisher PR et al (1996) Percutaneous core biopsy of the breast: effect of operator experience and number of samples on diagnostic accuracy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 166:341–346PubMed

15.

Parker SH, Burbank F (1996) A practical approach to minimally invasive breast biopsy. Radiology 200:11–20PubMed

16.

Burbank F, Parker SH, Fogarty TJ (1996) Stereotactic breast biopsy: improved tissue harvesting with the Mammotome. Am Surg 62:738–744PubMed

17.

Liberman L, Gougoutas CA, Zakowski MF et al (2001) Calcifications highly suggestive of malignancy: comparison of breast biopsy methods. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177:165–172PubMed

18.

Fahrbach K, Sledge I, Cella C et al (2006) A comparison of the accuracy of two minimally invasive breast biopsy methods: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 274:63–73CrossRefPubMed

19.

Whiting PF, Weswood ME, Rutjes AWS et al (2006) Evaluation of QUADAS, a tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 6:9CrossRefPubMed

20.

Deville WL, Buntinx F, Bouter LM et al (2002) Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodol 2:9CrossRefPubMed

21.

Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B (1993) Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med 12:1293–1316PubMed

22.

Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Balk EM et al (2001) Diagnosing acute cardiac ischemia in the emergency department: a systematic review of the accuracy and clinical effect of current technologies. Ann Emerg Med 37:453–460CrossRefPubMed

23.

Irwig L, Tosteson AN, Gatsonis C et al (1994) Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Ann Intern Med 120:667–676PubMed

24.

Suzuki S, Moro-oka T, Choudhry NK (2004) The conditional relative odds ratio provided less biased results for comparing diagnostic test accuracy in meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 57:461–469CrossRefPubMed

25.

Westwood ME, Whiting PF, Kleijnen J (2005) How does study quality affect the results of a diagnostic meta-analysis? BMC Med Res Methodol 8:20CrossRef

26.

Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M et al (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315:629–634PubMed

27.

Simon JR, Kalbhen CL, Cooper RA, Flisak ME (2000) Accuracy and complication rates of US-guided vacuum-assisted core breast biopsy: initial results. Radiology 215(3):694–697PubMed

28.

Lomoschitz FM, Helbich TH, Rudas M, Pfarl G, Linnau K, Stadler F, Jackman RJ (2004) A stereotactic 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: influence of number of specimens on diagnostic accuracy 1. RSNA 232(3):897–903

29.

Klem D, Jacobs HK, Jorgensen R, Facenda LS, Baker DA, Altimari A et al (1999) Stereotactic breast biopsy in a community hospital setting. Discuss Am Surg 65(8):737–741

30.

Killebrew LK, Oneson RH (2006) Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of a vacuum-assisted percutaneous intact specimen sampling device to a vacuum-assisted core needle sampling device for breast biopsy: initial experience. Breast J 12(4):302CrossRefPubMed

31.

Kettritz U, Rotter K, Schreer I, Murauer M, Schulz-Wendtland R, Peter D et al (2004) Stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VB) in 2874 patients: a multicenter study. EJC Suppl 2(3):88

32.

Weber WP, Zanetti R, Langer I, Dellas S, Zuber M, Moch H et al (2005) Mammotome: less invasive than ABBI with similar accuracy for early breast cancer detection. World J Surg 29(4):495–499CrossRefPubMed

33.

Apesteguia L, Mellado M, Saenz J, Cordero J, Reparaz B, De Miguel C (2002) Vacuum-assisted breast biopsy on digital stereotaxic table of nonpalpable lesions non-recognisable by ultrasonography. Eur Radiol 12(3):638–645PubMed

34.

Cassano E, Urban LABD, Pizzamiglio M, Abbate F, Maisonneuve P, Renne G (2007) Ultrasound-guided vacuum-assisted core breast biopsy: experience with 406 cases. Breast Cancer Res Treat 102(1):103–110CrossRefPubMed

35.

Mercado CL, Hamele-Bena D, Singer C, Koenigsberg T, Pile-Spellman E, Higgins H et al (2001) Papillary lesions of the breast: evaluation with stereotactic directional vacuum-assisted biopsy 1. RSNA 221(3):650–655

36.

Meloni GB, Dessole S, Becchere MP, Soro D, Capobianco G, Ambrosini G et al (2001) Ultrasound-guided mammotome vacuum biopsy for the diagnosis of impalpable breast lesions. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 18(5):520–524CrossRefPubMed

37.

Shin HJ, Kim HH, Kim SM, Yang HR, Sohn JH, Kwon GY et al (2008) Papillary lesions of the breast diagnosed at percutaneous sonographically guided biopsy: comparison of sonographic features and biopsy methods. Am J Roentgenol 190(3):630–636CrossRef

38.

Cangiarella J, Waisman J, Symmans WF et al (2001) Mammotome core biopsy for mammary microcalcification: analysis of 160 biopsies from 142 women with surgical and radiologic follow up. Cancer 91:173–177CrossRefPubMed

39.

Choo KS, Kwak HS, Bae YT, Lee JY, Lee SJ, Seo H et al (2008) The value of a combination of wire localization and ultrasound-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy for clustered microcalcifications. Breast 17(6):611–616CrossRefPubMed

40.

Vag T, Pfleiderer SOR, Böttcher J, Wurdinger S, Gajda M, Camara O et al (2007) Ultrasound-guided breast biopsy using a 10-gauge self-contained vacuum-assisted device. Eur Radiol 17(12):3100–3102CrossRefPubMed

41.

Hung WK, Lam HS, Lau Y, Chan CM, Yip AWC (2001) Diagnostic accuracy of vacuum-assisted biopsy device for image-detected breast lesions. ANZ J Surg 71(8):457–460CrossRefPubMed

42.

Perretta T, Pistolese CA, Bolacchi F, Cossu E, Fiaschetti V, Simonetti G (2008) MR imaging-guided 10-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: histological characterisation. La Radiol Med 113(6):830–840CrossRef

43.

Zannis VJ, Aliano KM, Klimberg VS, Beitsch PD (1998) The evolving practice pattern of the breast surgeon with disappearance of open biopsy for nonpalpable lesions. Am J Surg 176(6):525–528CrossRefPubMed

44.

Kim HS, Kim MJ, Kim EK et al (2008) US-guided vacuum-assisted biopsy of microcalcifications in breast lesions and long-term follow-up results. Korean J Radiol 9(6):503CrossRefPubMed

45.

Zhang YW, Cong JG, Cang QL, Ling Z, Qun WY (2008) The comparison between mammotome minimally invasive biopsy and cord needle in diagnosis for breast cancer. Chin J Gen Surg 17(11):1145–1147

46.

Zang JX, Yu LG, Zen H, Ming CC, Hong L, Weiet GE et al (2007) Clinical application of minimally-invasive stereotactic mammotome biopsy. Wai Ke Li Lun Yu Shi Jian 12(6):577–579

47.

Zhang L, Wu YQ, Wang LP, Zhou SQ (2004) Nonpalpable breast mass and atypical ductal hyperplasia-diagnosed by mammotome biopsy and surgical management. China J Mod Med 14(9):110–112

48.

Sohn V, Arthurs Z, Herbert G, Keylock J, Perry J, Eckert M et al (2007) Atypical ductal hyperplasia: improved accuracy with the 11-gauge vacuum-assisted versus the 14-gauge core biopsy needle. Ann Surg Oncol 14(9):2497–2501CrossRefPubMed

49.

Teng-Swan Ho J, Tan PH, Hee SW, Su-Lin Wong J (2008) Underestimation of malignancy of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed on 11-gauge stereotactically guided mammotome breast biopsy: an Asian breast screen experience. Breast 17(4):401–406CrossRefPubMed

50.

Forgeard C, Benchaib M, Guerin N et al (2008) Is surgical biopsy mandatory in case of atypical ductal hyperplasia on 11-gauge core needle biopsy? A retrospective study of 300 patients. Am J Surg 196(3):339–345CrossRefPubMed

51.

Grady I, Gorsuch H, Wilburn-Bailey S (2005) Ultrasound-guided, vacuum-assisted, percutaneous excision of breast lesions: an accurate technique in the diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia. J Am Coll Surg 201(1):14–17CrossRefPubMed

52.

Perlet C, Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Heinig A et al (2006) Magnetic resonance-guided, vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: results from a European multicenter study of 538 lesions. Cancer 106(5):982CrossRefPubMed

53.

Liberman L, Holland AE, Marjan D et al (2007) Underestimation of atypical ductal hyperplasia at MRI-guided 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. AJR 188:684–690CrossRefPubMed

54.

Pandelidis S, Heilman D, Jones D, Stough K, Trapeni J, Suliman Y (2003) Accuracy of 11-gauge vacuum-assisted core biopsy of mammographic breast lesions. Soc Surg Oncol 10(1):43–47CrossRef

55.

Jackman RJ, Burbank F, Parker SH et al (1997) Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at stereotactic breast biopsy: improved reliability with 14-gauge, directional, vacuum-assisted biopsy. Radiology 204(2):485–488PubMed

56.

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. Am J Roentgenol 173(1):227–229

57.

Zografos GC, Zagouri F, Sergentanis TN, Nonni A, Koulocheri D, Fotou M et al (2008) Minimizing underestimation rate of microcalcifications excised via vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: a blind study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 109(2):397–402CrossRefPubMed

58.

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):843–847PubMed

59.

Jackman RJ, Burbank F, Parker SH, Evans WP, Lechner MC, Richardson TR (2001) Stereotactic breast biopsy of nonpalpable lesions: determinants of ductal carcinoma in situ underestimation rates 1. RSNA 218(2):497–502

60.

Brem RF, Schoonjans JM, Sanow L, Gatewood OMB (2001) Reliability of histologic diagnosis of breast cancer with stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy. Am Surg 67(4):388–392PubMed

61.

Zhang L, Sun QX (2008) Study of mammotome minimally invasive biopsy on the diagnosis of breast cancer. Zhong Guo Xian Dai Pu Tong Wai Ke Jin Zhan 11:210–212

62.

Yu-yang Li, Fan-zhen Hong, Yong-sheng Wang et al (2007) Use of mammotome system in diagnose of early stage breast cancer. Chin J Cancer Prev Treat 14:706–708

63.

Irfan K, Brem RF (2002) Surgical and mammographic follow-up of papillary lesions and atypical lobular hyperplasia diagnosed with stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy. Breast J 8(4):230–232CrossRefPubMed

64.

Brem RF, Schoonjans JM, Nolten A et al (2001) Nonpalpable breast cancer: percutaneous diagnosis with 11- and 8-gauge stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy devices. Radiology 219:793–796PubMed

65.

Sim LSJ, Kei PL (2008) Upright stereotactic vacuum-assisted needle biopsy of suspicious breast microcalcifications. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 52:358–364CrossRefPubMed

66.

Soo MS, Ghate S, Delong D, Soo MS, Ghate S, Delong D (1999) Stereotactic biopsy of noncalcified breast lesions: utility of vacuum-assisted technique compared to multipass automated gun technique. Clin Imaging 23(6):347–352CrossRefPubMed

67.

Qu WZ, Wei T, Fu YZ, Man Z, Hua JG, Yong WQ et al (2008) The comparison between mammotome minimally invasive biopsy and tru-cut needle in diagnosis for breast cancer. Shi Yong Zhong Liu Zha Zhi 23(5):451–453

68.

Zuiani C, Mazzarella F, Londero V et al (2007) Stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: results, follow-up and correlation with radiological suspicion. Radiol Med 112:304–317CrossRefPubMed

69.

Lee JM, Kaplan JB, Murray MP et al (2007) Imaging-histologic discordance at MRI-guided 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. AJR 189:1852–1859

70.

Mendez A, Cabanillas F, Echenique M et al (2004) Evaluation of breast imaging reporting and data system category 3 mammograms and the use of stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in a nonacademic community practice. Cancer 100:710–714CrossRefPubMed

71.

Zografos GC, Zagouri F, Sergentanis TN et al (2007) Is zero underestimation feasible? Extended vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in solid lesions—a blind study. World J Surg Oncol 5:53CrossRefPubMed

72.

Cui M, Liu W, Qin Y et al (2005) Application of ultrasound guided mammotome minimally invasive biopsy system in breast lesions. Chin J Cancer Prev Treat 12:1405–1406

73.

Wang LP, Deng YB, Lu YP et al (2005) Application of ultrasonography in minimally invasive diagnosis and treatment of breast disease. Chin J Ultrasonogr 14:671–673

74.

Wei DZ, Lu XY, Zhu DJ et al (2007) Application of high-resolution ultrasound and CDFI-guided minimally invasive operation for breast cancer. Chin J Prim Med Pharm 14:1121–1123

75.

Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB et al (2003) The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 3:25CrossRefPubMed

76.

Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH et al (2003) The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol 56:1129–1135CrossRefPubMed

77.

Deeks JJ (2001) Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. In: Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG (eds) Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. BMJ Publishing Group, London, UK, pp 248–282CrossRef

78.

Jaeschke R, Guyatt G, Lijmer J (2002) Diagnostic tests. In: Guyatt G, Rennie D (eds) Users’ guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. AMA Press, Chicago, IL, pp 121–140

79.

Jaeschke R, Guyatt G, Lijmer J. Diagnostic tests. In: Guyatt G, Rennie D (eds) (2002) Users’ guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. AMA Press, Chicago, IL, pp 121–140

80.

Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW, Rados MS (1985) Atypical hyperplastic lesions of the female breast: a long-term follow-up study. Cancer 55:2698–2708CrossRefPubMed

81.

Tavassoli F, Norris HA (1990) Comparison of the results of long-term follow-up for atypical intraductal hyperplasia and intraductal hyperplasia of the breast. Cancer 65:518–529CrossRefPubMed

82.

Page DL, Rogers LW (1992) Combined histologic and cytologic criteria for the diagnosis of mammary atypical ductal hyperplasia. Hum Pathol 23:1095–1097CrossRefPubMed

83.

Petitti DB (2001) Approaches to heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat Med 20:3625–3633CrossRefPubMed

84.

Bauer VP, Ditkoff BA, Schnabel F et al (2003) The management of lobular neoplasia identified on percutaneous core breast biopsy. Breast J 9(1):4–9CrossRefPubMed

Title: Diagnostic value of vacuum-assisted breast biopsy for breast carcinoma: a meta-analysis and systematic review
Authors: Ying-Hua Yu
Chi Liang
Xi-Zi Yuan
Publication date: 01-04-2010
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 2/2010
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-010-0750-1

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2010

DNA methylation of polycomb group target genes in cores taken from breast cancer centre and periphery

A randomized, placebo-controlled trial (NCIC CTG MAP1) examining the effects of letrozole on mammographic breast density and other end organs in postmenopausal women

Applicability of the Gail model for breast cancer risk assessment in Turkish female population and evaluation of breastfeeding as a risk factor

The substrate domain of BCAR1 is essential for anti-estrogen-resistant proliferation of human breast cancer cells

Personal breast: customizing agents and biomarkers for optimal adjuvant endocrine therapy

Co-targeting the insulin-like growth factor I receptor enhances growth-inhibitory and pro-apoptotic effects of anti-estrogens in human breast cancer cell lines

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer