Biopsy technology; Breast biopsy; Breast neoplasm diagnosis; Nonpalpable breast lesions; Biopsy, Needle/methods/trends; Breast Neoplasms/pathology/surgery; False Positive Reactions; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Mammography; Retrospective Studies; Stereotaxic Techniques
Abstract :
[en] OBJECTIVE: To determine the advantages and limitations of a combined stereotaxic fine-needle aspiration biopsy and needle-core biopsy in the diagnosis of 353 nonpalpable breast lesions with special attention given to the collection of follow-up data. METHODS AND MATERIAL: 353 nonpalpable breast lesions underwent 'one pass' stereotaxic fine-needle aspiration (21 gauge needle) and needle-core biopsy (18 gauge needle) at our institution from January 1990 to October 1993. Stereotaxic biopsies were carried out by means of an 'add-on unit'. Surgical biopsy was usually recommended for highly suspicious radiologic patterns and/or needle biopsy reports classified as atypical or malignant. In all other cases mammographic follow-up was advised at 6 months and then annually for 3 years. The data were collected retrospectively during September 1995 (theoretical average follow-up of greater than 3 years). RESULTS: Following the combined needle biopsy technique procedure, surgery was recommended for 83 lesions. Fifty-four cancers were associated to these suspicious lesions. Because of changing radiological or clinical pattern during follow-up (mean follow-up: 22 months), 11 cancers were detected among the 270 lesions initially considered not to need surgery. Forty-three percent of the 65 malignant lesions were initially read as having less than highly suspicious mammographic features. There was no significant difference between the sensitivity and the specificity of one pass fine-needle aspiration biopsy (57% and 96% respectively) and needle-core biopsy (60% and 97% respectively), but noncontributive samples were not included in the false negative diagnoses and atypical samples were included in the true positive diagnoses. Of the 11 missed cancers, nine were manifested initially by clusters of calcifications. Our diagnostic approach was significantly less sensitive (P = 0.006) and less specific (P = 0.032) in cases of clusters of calcifications (31% false negative diagnoses) than in cases of soft-tissue masses (5.5% false negative diagnoses). In this study, an average delay in diagnoses of 22 months was responsible for a significantly increased percentage of axillary node positive invasive cancer (P < 0.001) and six of the 11 missed cancers were palpable at the time of the delayed diagnosis. For the nine cancers initially manifested by calcifications, the 22 months delay in diagnosis was responsible for a nonsignificant increase of microinvasive type at the expense of carcinoma in situ. CONCLUSION: Our enthusiasm with the sensitivity of this double stereotaxic needle sampling has been tempered by the results of this reanalysis in the light of a mean theoretical follow-up of three years. Our diagnostic approach was adequate in the presence of soft-tissue masses but not valid in the presence of clustered calcifications. When dealing with calcifications, multiple samplings must be done in order to improve the sensitivity of the diagnosis. Furthermore, this study does not favour the theory that the majority of mammographically detected cancers are indolent and highlights the poor sensitivity of the mammographic follow-up of nonpalpable lesions.
Disciplines :
Endocrinology, metabolism & nutrition Radiology, nuclear medicine & imaging Reproductive medicine (gynecology, andrology, obstetrics)
Author, co-author :
Lifrange, Eric ; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège - CHU > Sénologie
Kridelka, Frédéric ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences cliniques > Gynécologie et obstétrique
Colin, Claude ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Gynécologie - Obstétrique
Language :
English
Title :
Stereotaxic Needle-Core Biopsy and Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsy in the Diagnosis of Nonpalpable Breast Lesions: Controversies and Future Prospects
[1] Hennig K. Johansson H. Rimsten A. Stenkvist B. X-ray and fine needle biopsy in diagnosis of nonpalpable breast lesions. Acta Cytol 1975; 19: 7-10.
[2] Bolmgren J, Jacobson B, Nordenström B. Stereotaxic instrument for needle biopsy of the mamma. Am J Roent 1977; 129: 121-125.
[3] Azavedo E. Svane G. Auer G. Stereotactic fine-needle biopsy in 2594 mammographically detected non-palpable lesions. Lancet 1989: 1: 1033-1035.
[4] Parker SH, Burbank F, Jackman RJ. Aucreman CJ, Cardenosa G, TM, Coscia JL, Eklund GW. Evans III WP, Garver PR. Gramm HF, Haas DK, Jacob KM, Kelly KM, Killebrew LK, Lechner MC, Perlman SJ. Smid AP, Tabar L. Taber FE, Wynn RT. Percutaneous large-core breast biopsy: a multi-institutional study. Radiology 1994; 193: 359-364.
[5] Kopans DB. Caution on core. Radiology 1994; 193: 325-328.
[6] Lifrange E, Colin C. Diagnostic des lesions mammaires non palpables: contribution des biopsies à l'aiguille stéréoguidée (à propos de 148 cas). Le Sein 1992; 2: 68-75.
[7] Lifrange E, Colin C. Du bon usage des techniques avec repérage: intérêts et limites des prélèvements stéréoguidés. Le Sein 1995; 5: 115-116.
[8] Ciatto S. del Turco R. Bravetti P. Nonpalpable breast lesions: stereotaxic fine needle aspiration cytology. Radiology 1989; 173; 57-59.
[9] Dowlatshahi K. Yaremko ML. Kluskens LF. Jokich PM. Non-palpable breast lesions: findings of stereotaxic needle-core biopsy and fine needle aspiration cytology. Radiology 1991; 181: 745-750.
[10] Nordenström B. Zajicek J. Sterotaxic needle biopsy and preoperative indication of nonpalpable mammary lesions. Acta Cytol 1977; 21: 350-351.
[11] Lovin JA, Parker SH, Jobe WE. Luethke JM. Hopper KD. Stereotactic percutaneous breast core biopsy: technical adaptations and initial experience. Breast Dis 1990: 3: 135-143.
[12] Colin C. Evraud G. Lifrange E, Booz G. Confrontation des examens cytologiques et histologiques dans la ponction stéréotaxique des lésions mammaires solides non palpables. JBR-BTR 1992; 75: 11-16.
[14] Liberman L, Dershaw D. Rosen PP. Giess CS, Cohen MA, Abramson AF, Hann LE. Stereotaxic core biopsy of breast carcinoma: accuracy at predicting invasion. Radiology 1995; 194: 379-381.
[15] Jackman RJ, Nowels KW, Shepard MJ, Finkelstem SI, Marzoni F.A. Stereotaxic large-core needle biopsy of 450 nonpalpable breast lesions with surgical correlation in lesions with cancer or atypical hyperplasia. Radiology 1994; 193: 91-95.
[16] Holland R, Hendriks JH. Verbeek AL, Mravunac M, Schuurnians Stekhoven JH. Extent, distribution and mammographic histological correlations of breast ductal carcinoma in situ. Lancet 1990; 335: 519-522.
[17] Homer MJ. Safaii H. Smith TJ. Marchant DJ. The relationship of mammographic microcalcification to histologic malignancy: radiologic-pathologic correlation. Am J Roent 1989; 153: 1187-1189.
[18] Carter CL, Allen G, Henson DE. Relation of tumor size, lymph node status and survival in 24740 breast cancer cases. Cancer 1989: 63: 181-187.
[19] Schwartz GF, Carter DL, Conant EF, Gannon FH, Finkel GC, Feig SA. Mammographically detected breast cancer. Nonpalpable is not synonym for inconsequential. Cancer 1994; 73: 1660-1665.
[20] Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Day NE, Duffy SW, Kitchin RM, Breast cancer treatment and natural history: new insights from results of screening. Lancet 1992; 339: 412-414.
[21] Chadha M, Chabon AB, Friedmann P, Vikran B. Predictors of axillary lymph node metastases in patients with T1 breast cancer. A multivariate analysis. Cancer 1994; 73: 350-353.
[22] Mc Kinney CD, Frierson HF Jr., Fechner RE, Wilhelm MC, Edge SB. Pathologic findings in nonpalpable invasive breast cancer. Am J Surg Pathol 1992; 16: 33-36.
[23] Tubiana M, Koscielny S. Natural history of human breast cancer: recent data and clinical implications. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1991; 18: 125-140.
[24] Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Senn, HJ, Glick JH, Gelber RD. Meeting highlights: International consensus panel on the treatment of primary breast cancer. J Nat Canc Inst 1995; 87: 1441-1445.
[25] Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3184 consecutive cases. Radiology 1991: 179: 463-468.
[26] Varas X, Leborgne F, Leborgne JH. Nonpalpable probably benign lesions: role of follow-up marnmography. Radiology 1992; 184: 409-414.
[27] Meyer JE, Kopans DB. Stability of a mammographic mass: a false sense of security. Am J Roent 1981; 137: 595-598.
[28] Lev-Toaff AS. Feig SA, Saitas VL, Finkel GC, Schwartz GF. Stability of malignant breast microcalcifications. Radiology 1994; 192: 153-156.
[29] Liberman L, Dershaw DD, Rosen PP, Abramson AF, Deutch BM, Hann LE. Stereotaxic 14 gauge breast biopsy: how many core biopsy specimens are needed? Radiology 1994; 192: 793-795.
[30] Liberman L, Evans WP, Dershaw DD, Hann LE, Deutch BM, Abramson AF, Rosen PP. Radiography of microcalcifications in stereotaxic mammary core biopsy specimens. Radiology 1994; 190: 223-225.
[31] Clark GM, Dressier LG, Owens MA, Pounds G, Oldaker F, Mc Guire WL. Prediction of relapse or survival in patients with node negative breast cancer by DNA flow cytometry. N Engl J Med 1989; 320: 627-633.
[32] Lovin JD, Sinton EB, Burke BJ, Reddy VVB. Stereotaxic core breast biopsy: value in providing tissue for flow cytometric analysis. Am J Roent 1994; 162: 609-612.
[33] Youngson BJ, Cranor M. Rosen PP. Epithelial displacement in surgical breast specimens following needling procedures. Am J Surg Path 1994; 18: 896-903.
[34] Harter LP, Curtis JS, Ponto G, Craig PH. Malignant seeding of the needle track during stereotaxic core needle breast biopsy. Radiology 1992: 185: 713-714.
[35] Lee KC, Chan JKC, Ho LC. Histologic changes in the breast after fine-needle aspiration. Am J Surg Path 1994; 18: 1039-1047.
[36] Cline HE. Hynynen K. Watkins RD, Adams WJ, Schenck JF, Ettinger RH, Freund WR, Vetro JP, Jolesz F.A. Focused US system for MR imaging-guided tumor ablation. Radiology 1995; 194: 731-737.