Fernández-García P, Marco-Doménech SF, Lizán-Tudela L, Ibáñez-Gual MV, Navarro-Ballester A, Casanovas-Feliu E

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 102-110
PDF size: 259.22 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objetives: evaluate the effectiveness of vacuum aspiration biopsy (gauge 9G), guided by vertical stereotaxis or echography, and compare it with core needle (gauge 14G) and harpoon biopsy.
Material and Methods: a retrospective, analytical, observational study of 997 breast biopsies divided in three groups depending on technique: vacuum aspiration biopsy (181), core needle biopsy (626), and harpoon biopsy (190). We evaluated the anatomopathological results of radiological and surgical biopsies, percentage of correct diagnoses, false negatives, underestimation, and complications with each technique. We conducted descriptive and inferential analysis of the variables.
Results: there were no significant differences in sensitivity (p = 0.061), specificity (p = 0.732), positive predictive value (p = 1), or negative predictive value (p = 0.898) between vacuum aspiration biopsy, core needle biopsy, and harpoon biopsy. There were no significant differences between the percentage of false negatives in core needle biopsy (3.2%) and vacuum aspiration biopsy (0.7%). The percentage of underestimated lesions with vacuum aspiration biopsy (9.7%) was greater than those underestimated with core needle biopsy (4.3%) (p = 0.0297). We had more complications with vacuum aspiration biopsy (2.7%) than with core needle biopsy (0.4%), although all were mild.
Conclusions: there are no significant differences between the results of the three biopsy techniques guided by vertical stereotaxis or echography. Although neither core needle biopsy nor vacuum aspiration biopsy completely eliminate false negatives or diagnostic underestimation, they should be used first for mammary lesions because they obtain a percentage of diagnoses similar to surgical biopsy, with very few complications.

REFERENCES

1. Vega Bolivar A. Intervencionismo diagnóstico en patología de mama. Radiología.2011;53:531-43.

2. Park HL, Hong J. Vacuum assisted breast biopsy for breast cancer. Glang Surg. 2014;3:120-7.

3. Timpe L, Berkemeyer S, Puesken M,Tio J, Heindel W, Weigel S. Rates of presurgical underestimation of breast cancer after standardized assessment of breast calcifications. Rofo. 2015;87:445-9.

4. Poole BB, Wecsler JS, Sheth P, et al. Malignancy rates after surgical excision of discordant breast biopsies. J Surg Res. 2015;195:152-7.

5. Myong JH, Kang BJ, Yoon SK, Kim SH, An YY. The clinical utility of a adding lateral approach to conventional vertical approach for prone stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Korean J Radiol. 2013;14:568-75.

6. Ohsumi S, Takashima S, Aogi K,Ishizaki M, Mandai K.Breast biopsy for mammographically detected non-palpable lesions using a vacuum-assisted biopsy device (Mammotome) and an upright-type stereotactic mammography unit. Jpn J Clin Onc ol. 2001;31:527-31.

7. Pina L, Apesteguía L, de Luis E, Sáenz Bañuelos J, Zornoza G, Domínguez Cunchillos F. Técnicas de biopsia para el diagnóstico de lesiones mamarias no palpables. An Sist Sanit Navarr. 2004;27:345-58.

8. Ohsumi S, Taira N, Takabatake D, et al. Breast biopsy for mammographically detected nonpalpable lesions using a vacuum-assisted biopsy device (Mammotome) and upright-type stereotactic mammography unit without a digital imaging system: experience of 500 biopsies. Breast Cancer. 2014;21:123-7.

9. Gümüs H, Gümüs M, Devalia H, et al. Causes of failure in removing calcium in microcalcification-only lesions using 11-gauge stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2012;18:354-9.

10. Parker SH, Klaus AJ. Performing a breast biopsy with a directional vacuum-assisted biopsy instrument. Radiographics. 1997;17:1233-52.

11. Jackman RJ, Novels KW, Rodriguez-Soto J, Marzoni FA Jr, Finkelstein SI, Shepard MJ. Stereotactic, automatic, large-core needle biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions: false-negative and histologic underestimation rates after long-term follow-up. Radiology. 1999;210:799-805.

12. Sittek H, Perlet C, Schneider P, Untch M, Kolopenko T, Reiser M. Stereotactic vacuum biopsy in prone and sitting position. Radiologe. 2002;42:19-24.

13. Liberman L, Gougoutas CA, Zakowski MF, et al. Calcifications highly suggestive of malignancy: comparison of breast biopsy methods. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177:165-72.

14. Gonzalez P, Arancibia P, Laupheiner S, et al. Biopsia estereotáxica mamaria: 2 años de experiencia. Rev Chil Radiol. 2008;14:154-7.

15. Schaefer FK, Order BM, Ekmann-Scholz C. Interventional bleeding, hematoma and scar-formation after vacuumbiopsy under stereotactic guidance: Mammotome ®- system 11G/8G vs ATEC ® - system 12G / 9G. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:739-45.