Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
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.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 6/2011

01-06-2011 | Breast

Borderline breast lesions: comparison of malignancy underestimation rates with 14-gauge core needle biopsy versus 11-gauge vacuum-assisted device

Authors: Viviana Londero, Chiara Zuiani, Anna Linda, Luisa Battigelli, Giovanni Brondani, Massimo Bazzocchi

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 6/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

To compare malignancy underestimation rates in the case of percutaneous diagnosis of borderline breast lesions(B3) at 14-g core-needle-biopsy (CNB) and at 11-g vacuum-assisted-biopsy (VAB).

Methods

The histological results of 4764 image-guided breast biopsies were retrospectively reviewed. 300 B3, 151 benign papillomas, 88 radial sclerosing lesions, 46 lobular neoplasia, 15 atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at ultrasound-guided 14-g CNB (76%) or stereotactically-guided 11-g VAB (24%) were identified. On average, 5 cores were obtained with CNB and 12 with VAB. Biopsy variables were reviewed and correlated with surgical excision or follow-up (>24 months). Lesion- and device-specific underestimation rates of malignancy were calculated.

Results

Surgical excision was performed on 237 lesions: 178 were benign, 21 atypical, 38 cancers. The remaining 63 lesions were unchanged at follow-up. Overall malignancy underestimation rate was 12.7% at 14-g CNB and 12.5% at 11-g VAB. Based on excision histology or follow-up, lesion-specific underestimation rates were: benign papillomas: 14-g CNB 11%, 11-g VAB 0%; RSL: 14-g CNB 6%, 11-g VAB 4%; LN: 14-g CNB 40%, 11-g VAB 23%; ADH: 14-g CNB 33%; 11-g VAB 22%.

Conclusion

In the case of percutaneous diagnosis of B3 lesions, underestimation of malignancy occurs regardless of the biopsy method.
Literature
1.
2.
Liberman L (2000) Clinical management issues in percutaneous core breast biopsy. Radiol Clin N Am 38:791–807PubMedCrossRef
3.
Berg WA (2004) Image-guided breast biopsy and management of high-risk lesions. Radiol Clin N Am 42:935–946PubMedCrossRef
4.
Jacobs TW, Connolly JL, Schnitt SJ (2002) Nonmalignant lesions in breast core needle biopsies. To excise or not to excise? Am J Surg Pathol 26:1095–1110PubMedCrossRef
5.
Philpotts LE, Shaheen NA, Jain KS, Carter D, Lee CH (2000) Uncommon high-risk lesions of the breast diagnosed at stereotactic core-needle biopsy: clinical importance. Radiology 216:831–837PubMed
6.
Johnson NB, Collins LC (2009) Update on percutaneous needle biopsy of nonmalignant breast lesions. Adv Anat Pathol 16:183–195PubMedCrossRef
7.
Bilous M, Houssami N (2008) Management of lesions of uncertain malignant potential on breast core needle histology: vacuum-assisted excision as an alternative to surgical excision. Breast 17:543–544PubMedCrossRef
8.
Houssami N, Ciatto S, Bilous M, Vezzosi BS (2007) Borderline breast core needle histology: predictive values for malignancy in lesions of uncertain malignant potential (B3). BJC 96:1253–1257PubMedCrossRef
9.
El-Sayed ME, Rakha EA, Reed J, Lee AHS, Evans AJ, Ellis IO (2008) Predictive value of needle core biopsy diagnoses of lesions of uncertain malignant potential (B3) in abnormalities detected by mammographic screening. Histopathology 53:650–657PubMedCrossRef
10.
Lee AHS, Denley HE, Pinder SE et al (2003) Excision biopsy findings of patients with breast needle core biopsies reported as suspicious of malignancy (B4) or lesion of uncertain malignant potential (B3). Histopathology 42:331–336PubMedCrossRef
11.
Dillon MF, McDermott EW, Hill AD, O’Doherty A, O’Higgins N, Quinn CM (2007) Predictive value of breast lesions of “uncertain malignant potential” determined by needle core biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol 14:704–711PubMedCrossRef
12.
Linda A, Zuiani C, Bazzocchi M, Furlan A, Londero V (2008) Borderline breast lesions diagnosed at core needle biopsy: can magnetic resonance mammography rule out associated malignancy? Preliminary results based on 79 surgically excised lesions. Breast 17:125–31PubMedCrossRef
13.
Liberman L, Kaplan JB, Morris EA, Abramson AF, Menell JH, Dershaw DD (2002) To excise or to sample the mammographic target: what is the goal of stereotactic 11-gauge vacuum assisted breast biopsy? AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:679–683PubMed
14.
Jackman RJ, Rodriguez-Soto J (2006) Breast microcalcifications: retrieval failure at prone stereotactic core vacuum breast biopsy- Frequency, causes and outcome. Radiology 239:61–70PubMedCrossRef
15.
Jackman RJ, Burbank F, Parker SH, Evans WP 3rd, Lechner MC, Richardson TR et al (1997) Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at stereotactic breast biopsy: improved reliability with 14-gauge, directional, vacuum-assisted biopsy. Radiology 204:485–488PubMed
16.
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 172:683–687PubMed
17.
Philpotts LE, Lee CH, Horvath LJ, Lange RC, Carter D, Tocino I (2000) Underestimation of breast cancer with 11-gauge vacuum suction biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175:1047–1050PubMed
18.
Lourenco AP, Mainiero MB, Lazarus E, Giri D, Schepps B (2007) Stereotactic breast biopsy: comparison of underestimation rates with 11- and 9-gauge vacuum assisted breast biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:W275–W279PubMedCrossRef
19.
Jackman RJ, Burbank F, Parker SH, Evans WP 3rd, Lechner MC, Richardson TR et al (2001) Stereotactic breast biopsy: determinants of ductal carcinoma in situ underestimation rates. Radiology 218:497–502PubMed
20.
Kettritz U (2008) Modern concepts of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and its diagnosis through percutaneous biopsy. Eur Radiol 18:343–350PubMedCrossRef
21.
Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Schreer I, Decker T, Bocker W (2003) Interdisciplinary consensus on the use and technique of vacuum assisted stereotactic breast biopsy. Eur J Radiol 47:232–236PubMedCrossRef
22.
Lawton TJ, Georgian-Smith D (2009) Excision of high-risk breast lesions on needle biopsy: is there a standard of core? AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:268CrossRef
23.
Hayes BD, Quinn CM (2009) Pathology of B3 lesions of the breast. Diagn Histopathol 15:459–469CrossRef
24.
Hayes BD, O’Doherty A, Quinn CM (2009) Correlation of needle core biopsy with excision histology in screen-detected B3 lesions: the Merriot Breast Screening Unit experience. J Clin Pathol 62:1136–1140PubMedCrossRef
25.
Lieske B, Ravichandran D, Alvi A, Lawrence DAS, Wright DJ (2008) Screen-detected breast lesions with an indeterminate (B3) core needle biopsy should be excised. Eur J Surg Oncol 34:1293–1298PubMed
26.
Liberman L, Bracero N, Vuolo MA, Dershaw DD, Morris EA, Abramnson AF, Rosen PP (1999) Percutaneous large-core biopsy of papillary breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 172:331–337PubMed
27.
Carder PJ, Garvican J, Hiagh I, Liston JC (2005) Needle core biopsy can reliably distinguish between benign and malignant papillary lesions of the breast. Histopathology 46:320–327PubMedCrossRef
28.
Provenzano E, Pinder SE (2009) Pre-operative diagnosis of breast cancer in screening: problems and pitfalls. Pathology 41:3–17PubMedCrossRef
29.
Simpson JF (2009) Update on atypical epithelial hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ. Pathology 41:36–39PubMedCrossRef
30.
Lopez-Medina A, Cintora E, Mugica B, Operé E, Vela AC, Ibanez T (2006) Radial Scars diagnosed at stereotactic core-needle biopsy: surgical biopsy findings. Eur Radiol 16:1803–1810PubMedCrossRef
31.
Berg WA, Krebs TL, Campassi C, Magder LS, Sun C-CJ (1997) Evaluation of 14- and 11-gauge directional vacuum-assisted biopsy probes and 14-gauge biopsy gun in a breast parenchymal model. Radiology 205:203–208PubMed
32.
Burbank F, Parker SH, Fogarty TJ (1996) Stereotactic breast biopsy: improved tissue harvesting with the Mammotome. Am Surg 62:738–744PubMed
33.
Burbank F (1997) Stereotactic breast biopsy: comparison of 14- and 11-gauge Mammotome probe performance and complication rates. Am Surg 63:988–995PubMed
34.
Jackman R, Marzoni FA, 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 171:1325–1330PubMed
35.
Liberman L, Dershaw DD, Rosen PP, Morris EA, Abramson AF, Borgen PI (1998) Percutaneous removal of malignant mammographic lesions at stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy. Radiology 206:711–715PubMed
36.
Philpotts L, 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 180:347–351PubMed
37.
Cho N, Moon WK, Cha JH et al (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 6:102–109PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Borderline breast lesions: comparison of malignancy underestimation rates with 14-gauge core needle biopsy versus 11-gauge vacuum-assisted device
Authors
Viviana Londero
Chiara Zuiani
Anna Linda
Luisa Battigelli
Giovanni Brondani
Massimo Bazzocchi
Publication date
01-06-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 6/2011
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-2053-7

Other articles of this Issue 6/2011

European Radiology 6/2011 Go to the issue

Musculoskeletal

Prediction of bone loss in elderly female subjects by MR perfusion imaging and spectroscopy

Musculoskeletal

MRI differentiates femoral condylar ossification evolution from osteochondritis dissecans. A new sign

Letter to the Editor

Reply to Letter to the Editor re: Tumour thickness in oral cancer using an intraoral ultrasound probe

Cardiac

Magnetic resonance imaging findings in acute myocarditis and correlation with immunohistological parameters

Breast

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer-response evaluation and prediction of response to treatment using dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR imaging

Gastrointestinal

Value of MRI and diffusion-weighted MRI for the diagnosis of locally recurrent rectal cancer