Underestimation of breast cancer with II-gauge vacuum suction biopsy

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to determine the mammographic and histologic features of cancerous lesions underestimated using 11-gauge vacuum suction biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Retrospective review of 11-gauge vacuum suction biopsy was performed to identify lesions diagnosed as atypical ductal hyperplasia or carcinoma. The histology of the core and surgical specimens was compared. Of 158 cases of cancer, underestimation occurred in 15 (9.5%). The mammographic and histologic features were assessed. RESULTS. Of 15 underestimated cases, six were atypical ductal hyperplasia that proved to be cancer (5 ductal carcinoma in situ and 1 invasive) and nine were ductal carcinoma in situ that proved to have invasion. The underestimation rate for calcifications was 16.3% (14/86) and for masses was 1.6% (1/64) (p = 0.007). Most (5/6) underestimated atypical ductal hyperplasia cases were reported as "markedly atypical," and four of nine underestimated ductal carcinoma in situ cases were reported as "possible invasion." No significant difference was seen in the number of core specimens obtained or the sizes of the lesions for underestimated cases versus accurately diagnosed cases. The percentage of calcifications retrieved was significantly different (p = 0.017). No underestimations were found among cases in which the entire mammographic lesion was removed at vacuum suction biopsy. CONCLUSION. The cancer underestimation rate with vacuum suction biopsy was 9.5%. The underestimation rate for calcifications (16.3%) was significantly higher than that for masses (1.6%) (p = 0.007). The percentage of the lesion removed was an important factor in reducing underestimation, as reflected by the percentage of calcifications retrieved and the instances of complete resolution of the lesion seen on mammography.     

Breast Tomosynthesis: a Replacement or an Adjunct to Conventional Diagnostic Mammography?

Mammography is the current standard for breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Conventional mammography, a 2D representation of a 3D structure, is limited in sensitivity and specificity by overlapping tissue. Digital breast tomosynthesis, or 3D mammography, overcomes this major limitation. Since it was approved in the US as an adjunct to 2D mammography in February 2011, digital breast tomosynthesis has become more widely available. Review of the limited world literature on digital breast tomosynthesis shows it to be a promising technique increasing the accuracy of mammography by improving detection, localization, and characterization of findings. Here we review the potential benefits and disadvantages of digital breast tomosynthesis for screening and diagnosis, and describe the latest advances in tomosynthesis technology, including synthesized 2D imaging that may render the conventional 2D mammogram obsolete.     

Clip migration after 11-gauge vacuum-assisted stereotactic biopsy: case report

A 68-year-old woman underwent stereotactic biopsy of a small cluster of calcifications. The post-biopsy mammograms showed the biopsy-marking clip to be located correctly at the biopsy site. Follow-up mammograms 1 year later showed that the clip migrated to another quadrant of the breast. Findings in this case demonstrate that at long-term follow-up a biopsy-marking clip may not be accurately marking the biopsy site.     

Uncommon high-risk lesions of the breast diagnosed at stereotactic core-needle biopsy: clinical importance

PURPOSE: To assess the outcome of papillary lesions, radial scars, or lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) diagnosed at stereotactic core-needle biopsy (SCNB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of 1,236 lesions sampled with SCNB yielded 22 papillary lesions, nine radial scars, and five LCIS lesions. Diffuse lesions such as papillomatosis, papillary ductal hyperplasia, papillary ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and atypical lobular hyperplasia were not included. The mammographic findings, associated histologic features, and outcome were assessed for each case. RESULTS: Sixteen papillary lesions were diagnosed as benign at SCNB. Of these, five were benign at excision, and 10 were unremarkable at mammographic follow-up. At excision of an unusual lesion containing a microscopic papillary lesion, DCIS was found. Three of four papillary lesions suspicious at SCNB proved to be papillary carcinomas; the fourth had no residual carcinoma at excision. Eight of nine radial scars were excised, which revealed atypical hyperplasia in four scars but no malignancies. One LCIS lesion was found at excision to contain DCIS. CONCLUSION: Benign or malignant papillary lesions were accurately diagnosed with SCNB in the majority of cases. Cases diagnosed as suspicious for malignancy or with atypia or unusual associated histologic findings should be excised. No malignancies were found at excision of radial scars diagnosed at SCNB. Surgical removal of these lesions following SCNB may not be routinely necessary. DCIS was found in one lesion diagnosed as LCIS at SCNB, which suggests that removal of these lesions may be prudent.