Sonographically Guided Core Biopsy of the Breast: Comparison of 14-Gauge Automated Gun and 11-Gauge Directional Vacuum-Assisted Biopsy Methods.
- Author:
Nariya CHO
1
;
Woo Kyung MOON
;
Joo Hee CHA
;
Sun Mi KIM
;
Seung Ja KIM
;
Sin Ho LEE
;
Hye Kyung CHUNG
;
Kyung Soo CHO
;
In Ae PARK
;
Dong Young NOH
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article ; Comparative Study ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
- Keywords: Biopsies, technology; Breast, biopsy; Breast, US; Breast neoplasms, diagnosis
- MeSH: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Biopsy/instrumentation/*methods; Breast Neoplasms/*pathology/ultrasonography; Carcinoma in Situ/pathology; Carcinoma, Ductal/pathology; Comparative Study; Disease Progression; False Negative Reactions; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; Retrospective Studies
- From:Korean Journal of Radiology 2005;6(2):102-109
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of 14-gauge automated biopsy and 11-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy for the sonographically guided core biopsies of breast lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all sonographically guided core biopsies performed from January 2002 to February 2004. The sonographically guided core biopsies were performed with using a 14-gauge automated gun on 562 breast lesions or with using an 11-gauge vacuum-assisted device on 417 lesions. The histologic findings were compared with the surgical, imaging and follow-up findings. The histologic underestimation rate, the repeat biopsy rate and the false negative rates were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: A repeat biopsy was performed on 49 benign lesions because of the core biopsy results of the high-risk lesions (n = 24), the imaging-histologic discordance (n = 5), and the imaging findings showing disease progression (n = 20). The total underestimation rates, according to the biopsy device, were 55% (12/22) for the 14-gauge automated gun biopsies and 36% (8/22) for the 11-gauge vacuum-assisted device (p = 0.226). The atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) underestimation (i.e., atypical ductal hyperplasia at core biopsy and carcinoma at surgery) was 58% (7/12) for the 14-gauge automated gun biopsies and 20% (1/5) for the 11-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsies. The ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) underestimation rate (i.e., ductal carcinoma in situ upon core biopsy and invasive carcinoma found at surgery) was 50% (5/10) for the 14-gauge automated gun biopsies and 41% (7/17) for the 11-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsies. The repeat biopsy rates were 6% (33/562) for the 14-gauge automated gun biopsies and 3.5% (16/417) for the 11-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsies. Only 5 (0.5%) of the 979 core biopsies were believed to have missed the malignant lesions. The false-negative rate was 3% (4 of 128 cancers) for the 14-gauge automated gun biopsies and 1% (1 of 69 cancers) for the 11-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsies. CONCLUSION: The outcomes of the sonographically guided core biopsies performed with the 11-gauge vacuum-assisted device were better than those outcomes of the biopsies performed with the 14-gauge automated gun in terms of underestimation, rebiopsy and the false negative rate, although these differences were not statistically significant.
