medigraphic.com

2006, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Anales de Radiología México 2006; 5 (1)

A year experience in ultrasound and stereotactic breast biopsy compared with histologic result. Incan

Escobar SA, Villaseñor NY

Language: Spanish
References: 39
Page: 39-45
PDF size: 94.04 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To know the malignant percent of birads 4, 5 and of the rest of categories of the patients who done biopsy of breast guided by ultrasound or estereotaxia at the of Radiology and Image department of the National Institute of Cancerology (INCan), period report from october 1st, 2004 to September 30th, 2005.
Technique And Method: A retrospective revision of all the reports of pathology of the biopsies of breast guided by ultrasound and estereotactic, done in the of radiology and image department of the INCan from october 1st, 2004 to September 30th, 2005.
Results: In our study we found a malignant percents for birads 5 of (96%) birads 4 of (15.6%), birads 3 of (1.8%) and birads 0 (3.8%). 89% of sensitivity, a 94% of specificity, positive a predictive value of 26%, a negative predictive value of 94%, with an accuracy of 51% and one prevalence of cancer 19%, of the biopsies of breast guided by ultrasound or stereotactic.
Conclusions: The biopsies of breast guided by ultrasound or stereotactic in the INCan, are made by medical assigned radiologists and resident of post-grade of Radiology Oncológist with training, it is the method diagnosis of election in patients with radiological suspicion or clinical of cancer, mainly in nonconcrete injuries, the precision diagnoses according to the results of our study, are within the parameters that mark world-wide Literature and by its high sensitivity and specificity it is a method extremely reliable diagnosis, reason why, it must be the method of primary election for I diagnose of mammary cancer in all patient with radiological suspicion.


REFERENCES

  1. Barrera FJL, Mohar BA. Manual de procedimientos médicos del Instituto Nacional de Cancerología. 1a Ed. México: Masson Doyma; 2005, p. 158.

  2. Cancer Statistics, 2005. CA A. Cancer J Clin 2005; (55)1.

  3. Liberman L, Lauren A. Ernberg. Palpable breast masses is there a role for percutaneous imaging-guided core biopsy? Am J Roentgenol 2000; 175: 779-87.

  4. Roubidoux MA, Sabel MS. Small (< 2.0-cm) breast cancers: Mammographic and US findings at US-guided cryoablation-initial experience. Radiology 2004; 233: 857-67.

  5. Basset LW. Imaging of breast mases. Radiol Clinic N Am 2000; 38: 669-91.

  6. Heilbrunn KS. The American College of Radiology, mammography lexicon: Barking up the wrong tree? Am J Roentgenol 1994; 162: 593-4.

  7. Caplan LS, Blackman D, Nadel M, Monticciolo. Coding mammograms using the classification “probably benign finding-short interval follow-up suggested”. Am J Roentgenol 1999; 172: 339-42.

  8. Geller BW, Barlow WE, Ballard-Barbash R. Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS to Report on the mammographic evaluation of women with signs and symptom sof breast disease. Radiology 2002; 222: 536-42.

  9. Ortiz MC, García F, Díes SP. El informe radiológico según el sistema BI-RADS. Anales de Radiología Mexico 2002; 4: 573-6.

  10. Taplin SH, Ichikawa LE, Sickles EA. Concordance of breast imaging reporting and data system assessments and management recommendations in screening mammography. Radiology 2002; 222: 529-35.

  11. American College of Radiology. Imaging reporting and data system breast. Mammograpy. 4th Ed. 2003.

  12. Orel SG, Kay N, Reynolds C. BI-RADS Categorization. As a predictor of malignancy. Radiology 1999; 211: 845.

  13. Landis SH, Murray T, Bolden S, Wingo PA. Cancer statistics 1999; 49: 8-31.

  14. Layfield LJ, Chrischilles EA, Cohen MB, Bottles K. The palpable breast nodule: A cost-effectiveness analysis of alternate diagnostic approaches. Cancer 1993; 72: 1642-51.

  15. Haagensen CD. Physicians’ role in the detection and diagnosis of breast disease. In: Haagensen CD (ed.). Diseases of the breast. 3rd Ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1986, p. 516-76.

  16. Layfield LJ, Chrischilles EA, Cohen MB, Bottles K. The palpable breast nodule: A cost-effectiveness analysis of alternate diagnostic approaches. Cancer 1993; 72: 1642-51.

  17. Elson C, Cotton R, Davies C, Blamey R. A comparison of the use of the “Tru-Cut” needle and fine needle aspiration cytology in the pre-operative diagnosis of carcinoma of the breast. Histopathology 1978; 2: 239-54.

  18. Parker SH, Lovin JD, Jobe WE, Burke BJ, Hopper KD, Yakes WF. Nonpalpable breast lesions: stereotactic automated large-core biopsies. Radiology 1991; 180: 403-7.

  19. Parker S, Lovin J, Jobe W, Luethke J, Hopper K, Yakes W. Stereotactic breast biopsy with a biopsy gun. Radiology 1990; 176: 741-7.

  20. Fornage BD, Faroux MJ, Simatos A. Breast masses: US-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy. Radiology 1987; 162: 409-14.

  21. Parker SH, Jobe WE, Dennis MA, Stavros TA, Johnson KK, Yakes W. US-guided automated largecore breast biopsy. Radiology 993; 187: 507-11.

  22. Parker SH, Burbank F, Jackman RJ, Aucreman CJ, Cardenosa G, Cink TM, et al. Percutaneous large-core breast biopsy: a multi-institutional study. Radiology 1994; 193: 359-64.

  23. Fornage BD. Guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions: calculation of accuracy values [letter]. Radiology 1990; 177: 884-5.

  24. Fornage BD. Percutaneous biopsy of the breast: state of the art. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 1991; 14: 29-39.

  25. Kopans DB. Fine-needle aspiration of clinically occult breast lesions. Radiology 1989; 170: 313-4.

  26. Gordon PB, Goldenberg SL, Chan NHL. Solid breast lesions: diagnosis with US-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy. Radiology 1993; 189: 573-80.

  27. Hatada T, Ishii H, Ichii S, Okada K, Fujiwara Y, Yamamura T. Diagnostic value of ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy, core-needle biopsy, and evaluation combined use in the diagnosis of breast lesions. J Am Coll Surg 2000; 190: 299-303.

  28. Logan-Young W, Dawson AE, Wilbur DC, Avila EE, Tomkiewicz ZM, Sheils LA. The cost-effectiveness of fine-needle aspiration cystology and 14-gauge core needle biopsy compared with open surgical biopsy in the diagnosis of breast carcinoma. Cancer 1998; 82: 1867-73.

  29. Berg WA, Mrose HE, Ioffe OB. Atypical lobular hyperplasia or lobular carcinoma in situ at core-needle breast biopsy. Radiology 2001; 218: 503-9.

  30. 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: 627-31.

  31. Lindfors KK, Rosenquist CJ. Needle core biopsy guided with mammography: a study of cost-effectiveness. Radiology 1994; 190: 217-22.

  32. Lee CH, Egglin TK, Philpotts L, et al. Cost-effectiveness of stereotactic core needle biopsy: analysis by means of mammographic findings. Radiology 1997; 202: 849-54.

  33. Brenner RJ, Bassett LW. Stereotactic core-needle breast biopsy: A multi-institutional prospective trial. Radiology 2001; 218: 866-72.

  34. Liberman L, LaTrenta LR, Van Zee KJ. Stereotactic core biopsy of calcifications highly suggestive of malignancy. Radiology 1997; 203: 673-7.

  35. Liberman L, Abramson AF, Squires FB. The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. Am J Roentgenol 1998; 171: 35-40.

  36. Liberman L, Gougoutas CA, Maureen F. Zakowski calcifications highly suggestive of malignancy comparison of breast biopsy methods. Am J Roentgenol 2001; 177: 165-72.

  37. Doyle AJ, Murray KA, EW Nelson. Selective use of image-guided large core needle biopsy of the breast: accuracy and cost-effectiveness. Am J Roentgenol 1995; 165: 281-4.

  38. L Liberman, TL Feng, DD Dershaw, EA Morris. US-guided core breast biopsy: use and cost-effectiveness. Radiology 1998; 208, 717-23.

  39. Golub RM, Bennett CL, Stinson T. Venta L. Cost minimization study of image-guided core biopsy versus surgical excisional biopsy for women with abnormal mammograms. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22(12): 2430-7.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com