Top

Published in:

01-05-2008 | Epidemiology

Minimizing underestimation rate of microcalcifications excised via vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: a blind study

Authors: George C. Zografos, Flora Zagouri, Theodoros N. Sergentanis, Afroditi Nonni, Dimitra Koulocheri, Maria Fotou, Effrosyni Panopoulou, Nikolaos Pararas, Constantine Fotiadis, John Bramis

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 2/2008

Abstract

Purpose

The main disadvantage of Vacuum Assisted Breast Biopsy (VABB) is the probability of underestimating atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). This study evaluates a modified way of performing VABB.

Methods

266 women with microcalcifications graded BI-RADS 3&4 underwent VABB (11G) on the Fischer’s table. 133 women were allocated to the “standard” protocol and 24 cores were obtained (1 offset-main target and one additional offset). 133 women were randomly allocated to the “extended” protocol and 96 cores were excised (one offset- main target and 7 peripheral offsets). A preoperative diagnosis was established, and the removed volume was calculated. When precursor or malignant lesions were diagnosed, open surgery was performed. A second pathologist, blind to the preoperative results and to the protocol made the postoperative diagnosis. The discrepancy between preoperative and postoperative diagnoses was evaluated.

Results

When the standard protocol was applied, the underestimation rate for preoperative ADH, lobular neoplasia (LN), DCIS was 16.7%, 50% and 14.3% correspondingly. In the extended protocol, no underestimation was present in LN, ADH, but the underestimation rate for DCIS was 6.3%. In the extended protocol, no precursor/malignant tissue was left after VABB in all ADH cases, in 87.5% of LN cases, in 73.3% of DCIS, and in 50% of invasive carcinomas. The volume excised was 2.33 ± 0.60 cc and 6.14 ± 1.30 cc for the standard and the extended protocol, respectively. The rate of hematoma formation did not differ between the two protocols.

Conclusions

This recently introduced, “extended” way of performing VABB in microcalcifications safely minimizes the underestimation rate, which may lead to a modified management of ADH lesions.

Hoorntje LE, Peeters PH, Mali WP et al (2003) Vacuum-assisted breast-biopsy: a critical review. Eur J Cancer 39:1676–1683PubMedCrossRef

Mendez A, Cabanillas F, Echenique M et al (2003) Mammographic features and correlation with biopsy findings using 11-gauge stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy (SVABB). Ann Oncol 14:450–454

Ceccarelli G, Casciola L, Battisini I et al (2005) [Non palpable lesions of the breast: the Mammotome-biopsy in the preoperative management of breast cancer]. G Chir 26(5):187–193PubMed

Obenauer S, Fischer U, Baum F et al (2001) [Stereotactic vacuum core biopsy of clustered microcalcifications classified as BI-RADS 3]. Rofo 173(8):696–701PubMed

Altomare V, Guerriero G, Giacomelli L et al (2005) Management of nonpalpable breast lesions in a modern functional breast unit. Breast Cancer Res Treat 93(1):85–89PubMedCrossRef

Takahashi K, Gomi N, Iwase T et al (2006) The role and efficacy of Mammotome biopsy (vacuum-assisted breast biopsy). Nippon Rinsho 64(3):469–474

Dhillon MS, Bradley SA, England DW (2006) Mammotome biopsy: impact on preoperative diagnosis rate. Clin Radiol 61(3):469–474CrossRef

Pisano ED, Fajardo LL, Tsimikas J et al (1999) Rate of insufficient samples for fine-needle aspiration for non-palpable breast lesions in a multicenter clinical trial: the radiologic diagnostic oncology group 5 study. Cancer 82:678–688

Britton PD (1999) Fine needle aspiration or core biopsy. Breast 8:1–4CrossRef

10.

Diebold T, Jacobi V, Krapfl E et al (2003) [The role of stereotactic 11G vacuum biopsy for clarification of BI-RADS IV findings in mammography]. Rofo 175(4):489–494PubMed

11.

Cox D, Bradley S, England D (2006) The significance of mammotome core biopsy specimens without radiographically identifiable microcalcification and their influence on surgical management- A rertospective review histological correlation. Breast 15:210–218PubMedCrossRef

12.

Kettritz U, Morack G, Decker T (2005) Stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsies in 500 women with microcalcifications: radiological and pathological correlations. EJR 55:270–276CrossRef

13.

Cangiarella J, Waisman J, Symmans F et al (2001) Mammotome core biopsy for mammary microcalcification. Analysis of 160 biopsies from 142 women with surgical and radiologic follow-up. Cancer 91(1):173–177PubMedCrossRef

14.

Yamamoto D, Yamada M, Okugawa H et al (2004) Predicting invasion in mammographically detected microcalcification: a preliminary report. World J Surg Oncol 2(1):8PubMedCrossRef

15.

Plantade R, Hammou JC, Fighiera M et al (2004) Sous-estimation du cancer du sein par les macrobiopsies stéréotaxiques 11-gauge assistées par le vide. J Radiol 85:391–401PubMedCrossRef

16.

Bedei L, Falcini F, Sanna PA et al (2006) Atypical ductal hyperplasia of the breast: the controversional management of a borderline lesion: Experience of 47 cases diagnosed at vacuum-assisted biopsy. Breast 15:196–202PubMedCrossRef

17.

Brem RF, Berndt VS, Sanow L et al (1999) Atypical ductal hyperplasia: histological underestimation of carcinoma in tissue harvested from impalpable breast lesions using 11-gauge stereotactically guided directional vacuum-assisted biopsy. AJR 172:1405–1407PubMed

18.

Obenauer S, Hermann KP, Grabbe E (2005) Applications and literature review of the BI-RADS classification. Eur Radiol 15:1027–1036PubMedCrossRef

19.

Orel SG, Kay N, Reynolds C et al (1999) BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy. Radiology 211:845–850PubMed

20.

Eberl M, Fox C, Edge S et al (2006) BI-RADS classification for management of abnormal mammograms. J Am Board Fam Med 19(2):161–164PubMedCrossRef

21.

Chabriais J, Kinkel K, Thibault F (2002) Le système BI-RADS en imagerie mammaire: initiation à son utilization en version francaise. J Radiol 83:531–534PubMed

22.

Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Schreer I, Decker T et al (2003) Interdisciplinary consensus on the use and technique of vacuum assisted stereotactic breast biopsy. Eur J Radiol 47:232–236PubMedCrossRef

23.

Simon J, Kalbhen C, Cooper R et al (2000) Accuracy and complication rates of US-guided Vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: initial results. Radiology 215:694–697PubMed

24.

Huber S, Wagner M, Medl M et al (2003) Benign breast lesions: minimally invasive vacuum-assisted biopsy with 11-G needles-patient acceptance and effect on follow-up imaging findings. Radiology 226:783–790PubMedCrossRef

25.

Mendez A, Cabanillas F, Echenique M et al (2003) Mammographic features and correlation with biopsy findings using 11-gauge stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (SVABB). Ann Oncol 14:450–454

26.

Cassano E, Urban L, Pizzamiglio M, et al (2006) Ultrasound-guided vacuum-assisted core breast biopsy: experience with 406 cases. Breast Cancer Res Treat 102:103–110PubMedCrossRef

27.

Ciatto S, Houssami N, Ambrogetti D et al (2006) Accuracy and underestimation of malignancy of breast core needle biopsy: the Florence experience of over 4000 consecutive biopsies. Breast Cancer Res Treat 101:291–297PubMedCrossRef

28.

Jackman RJ, Burbank F, Parker SH et al (2001) Stereotactic breast biopsy of nonpalpable lesions: determinants of ductal carcinoma in situ underestimation rates. Radiology 218:497–502PubMed

29.

Lomoschitz FM, Helbich TH, Rudas M et al (2004) Stereotactic 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: influence of number of specimens on diagnostic accuracy. Radiology 232:897–903PubMedCrossRef

30.

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 5:53PubMedCrossRef

31.

Liberman L, Dershaw DD, Rosen PP et al (1998) Percutaneous removal of malignant mammographic lesions at stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy. Radiology 206:711–715PubMed

32.

Gajdos C, Levy M, Herman Z et al (1999) Complete removal of nonpalpable breast malignancies with a stereotactic percutaneous vacuum-assisted biopsy instrument. J Am Coll Surg 189:237–240PubMedCrossRef

Title: Minimizing underestimation rate of microcalcifications excised via vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: a blind study
Authors: George C. Zografos
Flora Zagouri
Theodoros N. Sergentanis
Afroditi Nonni
Dimitra Koulocheri
Maria Fotou
Effrosyni Panopoulou
Nikolaos Pararas
Constantine Fotiadis
John Bramis
Publication date: 01-05-2008
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 2/2008
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-007-9662-0

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

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2008

CCND1 amplification and cyclin D1 expression in breast cancer and their relation with proteomic subgroups and patient outcome

The role of cyclooxygenase-2 in breast cancer: review

Core wash cytology of breast lesions by ultrasonographically guided core needle biopsy

Assessing the economic burden of breast cancer in a US managed care population

Generation of mammaglobin-A-specific CD4 T cells and identification of candidate CD4 epitopes for breast cancer vaccine strategies

HER2/neu in systemic therapy for women with breast cancer: a systematic review

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer