Breast Imaging

Stereotactic Core-Needle Breast Biopsy: A Multi-institutional Prospective Trial

Published Online:Mar 1 2001https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.218.3.r01mr44866

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the accuracy of stereotactic core-needle biopsy (CNB) of nonpalpable breast lesions within the context of clinically important parameters of anticipated tissue-sampling error and concordance with mammographic findings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: CNB was performed in 1,003 patients, with results validated at surgery or clinical and mammographic follow-up. Mammographic findings were scored according to the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System with a similar correlative scale for histopathologic samples obtained at either CNB or surgery. Agreement of CNB findings with surgical findings or evidence of no change during clinical and mammographic follow-up (median, 24 months) for benign lesions was used to determine results. Three forms of diagnostic discrimination measures (strict, working [strict conditioned by tissue sampling error], applied [working conditioned by concordance of imaging and CNB findings) were used to evaluate the correlation of CNB, surgical, and follow-up results.

RESULTS: Strict, working, and applied sensitivities were 91% ± 1.9; 92% ± 1.8, and 98% ± 0.9, respectively; strict, working, and applied specificities were 100%, 98% ± 0.8, and 73% ± 0.9; strict, working, and applied accuracies were 97%, 96%, and 79%.

CONCLUSION: Percutaneous stereotactic CNB is an accurate method to establish a histopathologic diagnosis of nonpalpable breast lesions. Accuracy increases when additional surgery is performed for lesions with anticipated sampling error or when CNB findings are discordant with mammographic findings. An understanding of the interrelationship among these parameters is necessary to properly assess results.

References

1 Parker SH, Lovin JD, Jobe WE, et al. Nonpalpable breast lesions: stereotactic automated large-core biopsies. Radiology 1991; 180:403-407. Link, Google Scholar
Dowlatshahi K, Yaremko ML, Kluskens LF, et al. Nonpalpable breast lesions: findings of stereotaxic needle core biopsy and fine-needle aspiration cytology. Radiology 1991; 181:45-750. Google Scholar
3 Dronkers DJ. Stereotactic core biopsy of breast lesions. Radiology 1992; 183:631-634. Link, Google Scholar
4 Elvecrog EL, Lechner MC, Nelson MT. Nonpalpable breast lesions: correlation of stereotaxic large-core needle biopsy and surgical biopsy results. Radiology 1993; 188:453-455. Link, Google Scholar
5 Sullivan DC. Needle core biopsy of mammographic lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994; 162:601-608. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
6 Parker SH, Burbank F, Jackman RJ, et al. Percutaneous large-core breast biopsy: a multi-institutional study. Radiology 1994; 193:359-364. Link, Google Scholar
7 Caines JS, McPhee MD, Konok GP, et al. Stereotaxic needle core biopsy of breast lesions using a regular mammographic table with an adaptable stereotaxic device. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994; 163:317-321. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
8 Nath ME, Robinson TM, Tobon H, Chough DM, Sumkin JH. Automated large-core needle biopsy of surgically removed breast lesions: comparison of samples obtained with 14-, 16-, and 18-gauge needles. Radiology 1995; 197:739-742. Link, Google Scholar
9 Doyle AJ, Murray KA, Nelson EW, et al. Selective use of image-guided large-core needle biopsy of the breast: accuracy and cost-effectiveness. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995; 165:281-284. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
10 Brenner RJ, Fajardo L, Fisher PR, et al. Percutaneous core biopsy of the breast: effect of operator experience and number of samples on diagnostic accuracy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996; 166:341-346. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
11 Caines JS, Chantziantoniou K, Wright BA, et al. Nova Scotia breast screening program experience: use of needle core biopsy in the diagnosis of screening-detected abnormalities. Radiology 1996; 198:125-130. Link, Google Scholar
12 Janes RH, Bouton MS. Initial 300 consecutive stereotactic core-needle breast biopsies by a surgical group. Am J Surg 1994; 168:533-537. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
13 Mikhail RA, Nathan RC, Weiss M, et al. Stereotactic core needle biopsy of mammographic breast lesions as a viable alternative to surgical biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol 1994; 1:363-367. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
14 Israel PZ, Fine RE. Stereotactic needle biopsy for occult breast lesions: a minimally invasive alternative. Am Surg 1995; 61:87-91. Medline, Google Scholar
15 Rubin E, Dempsey PJ, Pile NS, et al. Needle-localization biopsy of the breast: impact of a selective core needle biopsy program on yield. Radiology 1995; 195:627-631. Link, Google Scholar
16 Lindfors KK, Rosenquist CJ. Needle core biopsy guided with mammography: a study of cost-effectiveness. Radiology 1994; 190:217-222. Link, Google Scholar
17 Liberman L, Fahs MC, Dershaw DD, et al. Impact of stereotaxic core breast biopsy on cost of diagnosis. Radiology 1995; :633-637. Medline, Google Scholar
18 Hillner BE, Bear HD, Fajardo LL. Estimating the cost-effectiveness of stereotaxic biopsy for nonpalpable breast abnormalities: a decision analysis model. Acad Radiol 1996; 3:351-360. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
19 Lee CH, Egglin TK, Philpotts L, et al. Cost-effectiveness of stereotactic core needle biopsy: analysis by means of mammographic findings. Radiology 1997; 202:849-854. Link, Google Scholar
20 Meyer JE, Christian RL, Lester SC, et al. Evaluation of nonpalpable solid breast masses with stereotaxic large-needle core biopsy using a dedicated unit. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996; 167:179-182. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
21 Jackman RJ, Nowels KW, Rodriguez-Soto J, et al. Stereotactic, automated, large-core needle biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions: false-negative and histologic underestimation rates after long-term follow-up. Radiology 1999; 210:799-805. Link, Google Scholar
22 Lee CH, Philpotts LE, Horvath LJ, et al. Follow-up of breast lesions diagnosed as benign with stereotactic core-needle biopsy: frequency of mammographic changes and false-negative rate. Radiology 1999; 212:189-194. Link, Google Scholar
23 Erickson EJ, McGreery JM, Muskett A. Selective nonoperative management of patients referred with abnormal mammograms. Am J Surg 1990; 160:659-662. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
24 Helvie MA, Pennes DR, Rebner M, et al. Mammographic follow-up of low suspicion lesions: compliance rate and diagnostic yield. Radiology 1991; 178:155- 178. Link, Google Scholar
25 Sickles EA. Periodic follow-up of probably benign mammographic lesions: results for 3184 consecutive cases. Radiology 1991; 179:463-468. Link, Google Scholar
26 Brenner RJ. Follow-up as an alternative to biopsy for probably benign mammographically detected abnormalities. Curr Opin Radiol 1991; 3:588-592. Medline, Google Scholar
27 Varus X, Leborgne F, Leborgne JH. Nonpalpable, probably benign lesions: role of follow-up mammography. Radiology 1992; 184:409-414. Link, Google Scholar
28 Jackman RJ, Nowels KW, Shepard MJ, et al. Stereotaxic large-core needle biopsy of 450 nonpalpable breast lesions with surgical correlation in lesions with cancer or atypical hyperplasia. Radiology 1994; 193:91-95. Link, Google Scholar
29 Liberman L, Cohen MA, Dershaw DD, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at stereotaxic core biopsy of breast lesions: an indication for surgical biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995; 164:1111-1113. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
30 Metz E. ROC methodology on radiologic imaging. Invest Radiol 1986; 21:720-733. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
31 Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982; 143:29-36. Link, Google Scholar
32 Azavedo E, Svane G, Auer G. Stereotactic fine-needle biopsy in 2594 mammographically detected non-palpable lesions. Lancet 1989; 1:1033-1036. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
33 NCI conference guidelines: the uniform approach to breast fine needle aspiration biopsy—a synopsis.Acta Cytol1996; 40:1120-1126. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
34 Pal SP, Ikeda DM, Birdwell RL. Compliance with recommended follow-up after fine needle-aspiration biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions: a retrospective study. Radiology 1996; 201:71-74. Link, Google Scholar
35 Elmore JG, Wells CK, Lee CH, et al. Variability in radiologists’ interpretation of mammograms. N Engl J Med 1994; 331:1493-1499. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
36 Burhenne HJ, Burhenne LW, Goldberg , et al. Interval breast cancers in the screening mammography of British Columbia: analysis and classification. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994; 162:1067-1071. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
37 Ikeda DM, Andersson I, Wattsgard C, et al. Interval carcinomas in the Malmo mammographic screening trial: radiographic appearance and prognostic considerations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992; 159:287-294. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
38 Bird RE, Wallace TW, Yankaskas BC. Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. Radiology 1992; 184:613-617. Link, Google Scholar
39 Martin JE, Moskowitz M, Milbrath JR. Breast cancer missed by mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1979; 132:737-739. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
40 Burrell HC, Sibbering DM, Wilson ARM, et al. Screening interval breast cancers: mammographic features and prognostic factors. Radiology 1996; 199:811-817. Link, Google Scholar
41 Cahill CJ, Boulter PS, Gibbs NM, et al. Features of mammographically negative breast tumours. Br J Surg 1981; 68:882-884. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
42 Shabot MM, Goldberg IM, Schick P, et al. Aspiration cytology is superior to Tru-cut needle biopsy in establishing the diagnosis of clinically suspicious breast masses. Ann Surg 1982; 196:122-126. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
43 Ballo MS, Sneige N. Can core needle biopsy replace fine-needle aspiration cytology in the diagnosis of palpable breast carcinoma: a comparative study of 124 women. Cancer 1996; 78:773-777. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
44 Dershaw DD, Morris EA, Liberman L. Non-diagnostic stereotaxic core breast biopsy: results of rebiopsy. Radiology 1996; 198:323-325. Link, Google Scholar
45 Burbank F. Stereotactic breast biopsy of atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ lesions: improved accuracy with directional, vacuum-assisted biopsy. Radiology 1997; 202:843-847. Link, Google Scholar
46 Liberman L, Dershaw DD, Rosen PP, et al. Stereotaxic core biopsy of breast carcinoma: accuracy at predicting invasion. Radiology 1995; 194:379-381. Link, Google Scholar
47 Burbank F, Parker SH, Fogarty TJ. Stereotactic breast biopsy: improved tissue harvesting with the Mammotome. Am Surg 1996; 62:738-744. Medline, Google Scholar
48 Brenner RJ, Sickles EA. Surveillance mammography and stereotactic core breast biopsy for probably benign lesions: a cost comparison analysis. Acad Radiol 1997; 4:419-425. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar

Article History

Published in print: Mar 2001

Vol. 218, No. 3

Metrics

Altmetric Score

PDF download