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

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.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
La radiologia medica
Published in: La radiologia medica 4/2015

01-04-2015 | BREAST RADIOLOGY

Mammotome® and EnCor®: comparison of two systems for stereotactic vacuum-assisted core biopsy in the characterisation of suspicious mammographic microcalcifications alone

Authors: Giovanna Mariscotti, Manuela Durando, Mattia Robella, Francesca Angelino, Elisa Regini, Pier Paolo Campanino, Marco Belletti, Silvia Osano, Laura Bergamasco, Paolo Fonio, Giovanni Gandini

Published in: La radiologia medica | Issue 4/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The authors sought to compare the diagnostic performance of the Mammotome® and EnCor® vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VABB) systems in the assessment of suspicious mammographic microcalcifications.

Materials and methods

Between January 2011 and July 2012, a total of 169 VABB were performed by stereotactic guidance on a prone table. The Mammotome® 11G (S1) or EnCor® 10G (S2) probes were used randomly. Sampling time and the number of frustules collected were considered; sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, positive and negative predictive value (PPV, NPV) of both procedures were evaluated, considering the final histological examination as reference (B1, B3, B5 lesions underwent surgical excision; B2 lesion were considered confirmed after a negative follow-up of at least 1 year).

Results

There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups of patients according to the number of procedures (S1 82/169; S2 87/169), average age, BIRADS category (4a, b), and average size of the lesions. The two systems did not differ statistically for correlation with the final histology (S1 k = 0.94 ± 0.06; S2 k = 0.92 ± 0.08) and underestimation of B3 lesions or in situ (S1 4.5 %; S2 4.3 %). Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, diagnostic accuracy of S1 and S2 were also not statistically different. The systems differed only in sampling time (S1 80; S2 63 s), but not in total procedure time.

Conclusions

Our study confirms the effectiveness of VABB in the assessment of microcalcifications and highlights the lack of significant differences between the two systems in terms of diagnostic performance.
Literature
1.
Luparia A, Durando M, Campanino P et al (2011) Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of stereotactic vacuum-assisted core biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions: analysis of 602 biopsies performed over 5 years. Radiol Med 116:477–488. doi:10.​1007/​s11547-011-0625-x CrossRefPubMed
2.
3.
Perry N, Broeders M, De Wolf C et al (2008) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition––summary document. Ann Oncol 19:614–622CrossRefPubMed
4.
5.
Bernardi D, Borsato G, Pellegrini M et al (2012) On the diagnostic accuracy of stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy of nonpalpable breast abnormalities. Results in a consecutive series of 769 procedures performed at the Trento Department of Breast Diagnosis. Tumori 98:113–118. doi:10.​1700/​1053.​11509 PubMed
6.
Wallis M, Tardivon A, Helbich T, Schreer I (2007) Guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging for diagnostic interventional breast procedures. Eur Radiol 17:581–588CrossRefPubMed
7.
American College of Radiology (2003) Guidance chapter. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas (BI-RADS® Atlas). Reston, Va: © American College of Radiology, pp 253–259
8.
Ellis IO, Humphreys S, Michell M, UK National Coordinating Committee for Breast Screening Pathology, European Commission Working Group on Breast Screening Pathology et al (2004) Best practice no 179. Guidelines for breast needle core biopsy handling and reporting in breast screening assessment. J Clin Pathol 57:897–902CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
9.
Dhillon MS, Bradley SA, England DW (2006) Mammotome biopsy: impact on preoperative diagnosis rate. Clin Radiol 61:276–281CrossRefPubMed
10.
11.
Lourenco AP, Mainiero MB, Lazarus E et al (2007) Stereotactic breast biopsy: comparison of histologic underestimation rates with 11- and 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:W275–W279CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
Liberman L, Kaplan JB, Morris EA et al (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 179:679–683CrossRefPubMed
14.
Penco S, Rizzo S, Bozzini AC et al (2010) Stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy is not a therapeutic procedure even when all mammographically found calcifications are removed: analysis of 4,086 procedures. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:1255–1260. doi:10.​2214/​AJR.​10.​4208 CrossRefPubMed
15.
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
16.
Balleyguier C, Ayadi S, Van Nguyen K et al (2007) BIRADS classification in mammography. Eur J Radiol 61:192–194CrossRefPubMed
17.
Pijnappel RM, Peeters PH, Hendriks JH, Mali WP (2004) Reproducibility of mammographic classifications for non-palpable suspect lesions with microcalcifications. Br J Radiol 77:312–314CrossRefPubMed
18.
Coşar ZS, Cetin M, Tepe TK et al (2005) Concordance of mammographic classifications of microcalcifications in breast cancer diagnosis. Utility of the breast imaging reporting and data system (fourth edition). Clin Imaging 29:389–395CrossRefPubMed
19.
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
20.
Chapellier C, Balu-Maestro C, Amoretti N et al (2006) Vacuum-assisted breast biopsies. Experience at the Antoine Lacassagne Cancer Center (Nice, France). Clin Imaging 30:99–107CrossRefPubMed
21.
Meyer JE, Smith DN, Di Piro PJ et al (1997) Stereotactic breast biopsy of clustered microcalcifications with a directional, vacuum-assisted device. Radiology 204:575–576CrossRefPubMed
22.
Apesteguía L, Mellado M, Sáenz J et al (2002) Vacuum-assisted breast biopsy on digital stereotaxic table of nonpalpable lesions non-recognisable by ultrasonography. Eur Radiol 12:638–645CrossRefPubMed
23.
Metadata
Title
Mammotome® and EnCor®: comparison of two systems for stereotactic vacuum-assisted core biopsy in the characterisation of suspicious mammographic microcalcifications alone
Authors
Giovanna Mariscotti
Manuela Durando
Mattia Robella
Francesca Angelino
Elisa Regini
Pier Paolo Campanino
Marco Belletti
Silvia Osano
Laura Bergamasco
Paolo Fonio
Giovanni Gandini
Publication date
01-04-2015
Publisher
Springer Milan
Published in
La radiologia medica / Issue 4/2015
Print ISSN: 0033-8362
Electronic ISSN: 1826-6983
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-014-0452-6

Other articles of this Issue 4/2015

La radiologia medica 4/2015 Go to the issue

CHEST RADIOLOGY

Ventilation catheter-assisted airway stenting under local anaesthesia for patients with airway stenosis: initial clinical experience

BREAST RADIOLOGY

Breast cancer risk associated with the diagnosis of a microhistological radial scar (RS): retrospective analysis in 10 years of experience

Erratum

Erratum to: C-arm cone-beam computed tomography in interventional oncology: technical aspects and clinical applications

DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING IN ONCOLOGY

Delineating brachial plexus, cochlea, pharyngeal constrictor muscles and optic chiasm in head and neck radiotherapy: a CT-based model atlas

VASCULAR AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY

Prostatic artery embolization in benign prostatic hyperplasia: preliminary results in 13 patients

COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY

Correlation of computed tomography angiography parameters and shock index to assess the transportation risk in aortic dissection patients