Korean J Radiol.  2005 Jun;6(2):102-109. 10.3348/kjr.2005.6.2.102.

Sonographically Guided Core Biopsy of the Breast: Comparison of 14-Gauge Automated Gun and 11-Gauge Directional Vacuum-Assisted Biopsy Methods

• Cho N
• Moon WK
• Cha JH
• Kim SM
• Kim SJ
• Lee SH
• Chung HK
• Cho KS
• Park IA
• Noh DY

• KMID: 1783183
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2005.6.2.102

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.

Keyword

Biopsies, technology; Breast, biopsy; Breast, US; Breast neoplasms, diagnosis

MeSH Terms

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

Reference

1. Parker SH, Jobe WE, Dennis MA, Stavros AT, Johnson KK, Yakes WF, et al. US-guided automated large-core breast biopsy. Radiology. 1993. 187:507–511.

2. Liberman L, Feng TL, Dershaw DD, Morris EA, Abramson AF. Ultrasound-guided core breast biopsy: use and cost-effectiveness. Radiology. 1998. 208:717–723.

3. Smith DN, Rosenfield Darling ML, Meyer JE, Denison CM, Rose DI, Lester S, et al. The utility of ultrasonographically guided large-core needle biopsy: results from 500 consecutive breast biopsies. J Ultrasound Med. 2001. 20:43–49.

4. Fishman JE, Milikowski C, Ramsinghani R, Velasquez MV, Aviram G. US-guided core-needle biopsy of the breast: how many specimens are necessary? Radiology. 2003. 226:779–782.

5. Fajardo LL, Pisano ED, Caudry DJ, Gatsonis CA, Berg WA, Connolly J, et al. Stereotactic and sonographic large-core biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions: results of the Radiologic Diagnostic Oncology Group V study. Acad Radiol. 2004. 11:293–308.

6. Jackman RJ, Nowels KW, Rodriguez-Soto J, Marzoni FA Jr, Finkelstein SI, Shepard MJ. 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.

7. Darling MLR, Smith DN, Lester SC, Kaelin C, Selland DL, Denison CM, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ as revealed by large-core needle breast biopsy: results of surgical excision. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000. 175:1341–1346.

8. Han BK, Choe YH, Ko YH, Nam SJ, Kim JH, Yang JH. Stereotactic core-needle biopsy of non-mass calcifications: outcome and accuracy at long-term follow-up. Korean J Radiol. 2003. 4:217–223.

9. 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.

10. Jackman RJ, Burbank F, Parker SH, Evans WP 3rd, Lechner MC, Richardson TR, et al. Stereotactic breast biopsy of nonpalpable lesions: determinants of ductal carcinoma in situ underestimation rates. Radiology. 2001. 218:497–502.

11. Philpotts LE, Lee CH, Horvath LJ, Lange RC, Carter D, Tocino I. Underestimation of breast cancer with 11-gauge vacuum suction biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000. 175:1047–1050.

12. Jackman RJ, Burbank F, Parker SH, Evans WP 3rd, Lechner MC, Richardson TR, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at stereotactic breast biopsy: improved reliability with 14-gauge, directional, vacuum-assisted biopsy. Radiology. 1997. 204:485–488.

13. Philpotts LE, Shaheen NA, Carter D, Lange RC, Lee CH. Comparison of rebiopsy rates after stereotactic core needle biopsy of the breast with 11-gauge vacuum suction probe versus 14-gauge needle and automatic gun. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999. 172:683–687.

14. Liberman L, Smolkin JH, Dershaw DD, Morris EA, Abramson AF, Rosen PP. Calcification retrieval at stereotactic, 11-gauge, directional, vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Radiology. 1998. 208:251–260.

15. Liberman L, Drotman M, Morris EA, LaTrenta LR, Abramson AF, Zakowski MF, et al. Imaging-histologic discordance at percutaneous breast biopsy. Cancer. 2000. 89:2538–2546.

16. Berg WA, Krebs TL, Campassi C, Magder LS, Sun CC. Evaluation of 14 and 11 gauge directional, vacuum-assisted biopsy probes and 14G biopsy guns in a breast parenchymal model. Radiology. 1997. 205:203–208.

17. Parker SH, Klaus AJ, McWey PJ, Schilling KJ, Cupples TE, Duchesne N, et al. Sonographically guided directional vacuum-assisted breast biopsy using a handheld device. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001. 177:405–408.

18. Philpotts LE, Hooley RJ, Lee CH. Comparison of automated versus vacuum-assisted biopsy methods for sonographically guided core biopsy of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003. 180:347–351.

19. Mercado CL, Hamele-Bena D, Singer C, Koenigsberg T, Pile-Spellman E, Higgins H, et al. Papillary lesions of the breast: evaluation with stereotactic directional vacuum-assisted biopsy. Radiology. 2001. 221:650–655.

20. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS™). 1998. 3rd ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology.

21. Stavros AT. Stavros AT, editor. Introduction to breast ultrasound. Breast ultrasound. 2004. 1st ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins;1–15.

22. Liberman L, Kaplan JB, Morris EA, Abramson AF, Menell JH, Dershaw DD. To excise or to sample the mammographic target: what is the goal of stereotactic 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002. 179:679–683.

23. 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. 193:359–364.

24. Liberman L, Dershaw DD, Glassman JR, Abramson AF, Morris EA, LaTrenta LR, et al. Analysis of cancers not diagnosed at stereotactic core breast biopsy. Radiology. 1997. 203:151–157.

25. Berg WA. Image-guided breast biopsy and management of high-risk lesions. Radiol Clin North Am. 2004. 42:935–946.

26. Berg WA, Berg AP, Ioffe OB. Initial success and frequency of rebiopsy after ultrasound-guided 14-g core breast biopsy [abstract]. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003. 180:10.

27. Soo MS, Baker JA, Rosen EL. Sonographic detection and sonographically guided biopsy of breast microcalcifications. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003. 180:941–948.

28. Moon WK, Im JG, Koh YH, Noh DY, Park IA. US of mammographically detected clustered microcalcifications. Radiology. 2000. 217:849–854.