Document Detail


Comparison of the underestimation rate in cases with ductal carcinoma in situ at ultrasound-guided core biopsy: 14-gauge automated core-needle biopsy vs 8- or 11-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  22422382     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the underestimation rate of invasive carcinoma in cases with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) at percutaneous ultrasound-guided core biopsies of breast lesions between 14-gauge automated core-needle biopsy (ACNB) and 8- or 11-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB), and to determine the relationship between the lesion type (mass or microcalcification on radiological findings) and the DCIS underestimation rate.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed imaging-guided biopsies of breast lesions performed from February 2003 to August 2008. 194 lesions were diagnosed as DCIS at ultrasound-guided core biopsy: 138 lesions in 132 patients by 14-gauge ACNB, and 56 lesions in 56 patients by 8- or 11-gauge VAB. The histological results of the core biopsy samples were correlated with surgical specimens. The clinical and radiological findings were also reviewed. The histological DCIS underestimation rates were compared between the two groups and were analysed for differences according to the clinical and radiological characteristics of the lesions.
RESULTS: The DCIS underestimation rate was 47.8% (66/138) for 14-gauge ACNB and 16.1% (9/56) for VAB (p<0.001). According to the lesion type on sonography, DCIS underestimation was 43.4% (63/145) in masses (47.6% using ACNB and 15.8% using VAB; p=0.012) and 24.5% (12/49) in microcalcifications (50.0% using ACNB and 16.2% using VAB; p=0.047).
CONCLUSION: The underestimation rate of invasive carcinoma in cases with DCIS at ultrasound-guided core biopsies was significantly higher for ACNB than for VAB. Furthermore, this difference does not change according to the lesion type on ultrasound. Therefore, ultrasound-guided VAB can be a useful method for the diagnosis of DCIS lesions presented as either mass or microcalcification.
Authors:
Y J Suh; M J Kim; E-K Kim; H J Moon; J Y Kwak; H R Koo; J H Yoon
Publication Detail:
Type:  Comparative Study; Journal Article     Date:  2012-03-14
Journal Detail:
Title:  The British journal of radiology     Volume:  85     ISSN:  1748-880X     ISO Abbreviation:  Br J Radiol     Publication Date:  2012 Aug 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2012-07-20     Completed Date:  2012-10-01     Revised Date:  2013-08-14    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  0373125     Medline TA:  Br J Radiol     Country:  England    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  e349-56     Citation Subset:  AIM; IM    
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science, Yonsei University, College of Medicine, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Adult
Biopsy, Needle / instrumentation,  methods*
Breast / pathology*
Breast Neoplasms / pathology*
Calcinosis / pathology
Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast / pathology*
Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating / pathology*
Delayed Diagnosis
Female
Humans
Middle Aged
Prognosis
Sensitivity and Specificity
Ultrasonography, Interventional / methods
Vacuum
Comments/Corrections

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine


Previous Document:  Clinico-radiological spectrum of bilateral temporal lobe hyperintensity: a retrospective review.
Next Document:  CT and MR cholangiography: advantages and pitfalls in perioperative evaluation of biliary tree.