Stereotactic breast biopsy of nonpalpable lesions

Determinants of ductal carcinoma in situ underestimation rates

R. J. Jackman, F. Burbank, S. H. Parker, W. P. Evans, M. C. Lechner, T. R. Richardson, A. A. Smid, H. B. Borofsky, C. H. Lee, H. M. Goldstein, K. J. Schilling, A. B. Wray, R. F. Brem, T. H. Helbich, D. E. Lehrer, S. J. Adler

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

278 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE: To measure the effect of biopsy device, probe size, mammographic lesion type, lesion size, and number of samples obtained per lesion on the ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) underestimation rate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nonpalpable breast lesions at 16 institutions received a histologic diagnosis of DCIS after 14-gauge automated large-core biopsy in 373 lesions and after 14- or 11-gauge directional vacuum-assisted biopsy in 953 lesions. The presence of histopathologic invasive carcinoma was noted at subsequent surgical biopsy. RESULTS: By performing the X2 test, independent significant DCIS underestimation rates by biopsy device were 20.4% (76 of 373) of lesions diagnosed at large-core biopsy and 11.2% (107 of 953) of lesions diagnosed at vacuum-assisted biopsy (P < .001); by lesion type, 24.3% (35 of 144) of masses and 12.5% (148 of 1,182) of microcalcifications (P < .001); and by number of specimens per lesion, 17.5% (88 of 502) with 10 or fewer specimens and 11.5% (92 of 799) with greater than 10 (P < .02). DCIS underestimations increased with lesion size. CONCLUSION: DCIS underestimations were 1.9 times more frequent with masses than with calcifications, 1.8 times more frequent with large-core biopsy than with vacuum-assisted biopsy, and 1.5 times more frequent with 10 or fewer specimens per lesion than with more than 10 specimens per lesion.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)497-502
Number of pages6
JournalRadiology
Volume218
Issue number2
StatePublished - 2001

Fingerprint

Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating
Breast
Biopsy
Vacuum
Calcinosis
Equipment and Supplies
Sample Size
Carcinoma

Keywords

  • Biopsies, technology
  • Breast neoplasms, diagnosis
  • Breast, biopsy
  • Breast, diseases
  • Breast, ducts

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology

Cite this

Jackman, R. J., Burbank, F., Parker, S. H., Evans, W. P., Lechner, M. C., Richardson, T. R., ... Adler, S. J. (2001). Stereotactic breast biopsy of nonpalpable lesions: Determinants of ductal carcinoma in situ underestimation rates. Radiology, 218(2), 497-502.

Stereotactic breast biopsy of nonpalpable lesions : Determinants of ductal carcinoma in situ underestimation rates. / Jackman, R. J.; Burbank, F.; Parker, S. H.; Evans, W. P.; Lechner, M. C.; Richardson, T. R.; Smid, A. A.; Borofsky, H. B.; Lee, C. H.; Goldstein, H. M.; Schilling, K. J.; Wray, A. B.; Brem, R. F.; Helbich, T. H.; Lehrer, D. E.; Adler, S. J.

In: Radiology, Vol. 218, No. 2, 2001, p. 497-502.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Jackman, RJ, Burbank, F, Parker, SH, Evans, WP, Lechner, MC, Richardson, TR, Smid, AA, Borofsky, HB, Lee, CH, Goldstein, HM, Schilling, KJ, Wray, AB, Brem, RF, Helbich, TH, Lehrer, DE & Adler, SJ 2001, 'Stereotactic breast biopsy of nonpalpable lesions: Determinants of ductal carcinoma in situ underestimation rates', Radiology, vol. 218, no. 2, pp. 497-502.
Jackman RJ, Burbank F, Parker SH, Evans WP, Lechner MC, Richardson TR et al. Stereotactic breast biopsy of nonpalpable lesions: Determinants of ductal carcinoma in situ underestimation rates. Radiology. 2001;218(2):497-502.
Jackman, R. J. ; Burbank, F. ; Parker, S. H. ; Evans, W. P. ; Lechner, M. C. ; Richardson, T. R. ; Smid, A. A. ; Borofsky, H. B. ; Lee, C. H. ; Goldstein, H. M. ; Schilling, K. J. ; Wray, A. B. ; Brem, R. F. ; Helbich, T. H. ; Lehrer, D. E. ; Adler, S. J. / Stereotactic breast biopsy of nonpalpable lesions : Determinants of ductal carcinoma in situ underestimation rates. In: Radiology. 2001 ; Vol. 218, No. 2. pp. 497-502.
@article{f6928c3655a344dd948944d9f8544c10,
title = "Stereotactic breast biopsy of nonpalpable lesions: Determinants of ductal carcinoma in situ underestimation rates",
abstract = "PURPOSE: To measure the effect of biopsy device, probe size, mammographic lesion type, lesion size, and number of samples obtained per lesion on the ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) underestimation rate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nonpalpable breast lesions at 16 institutions received a histologic diagnosis of DCIS after 14-gauge automated large-core biopsy in 373 lesions and after 14- or 11-gauge directional vacuum-assisted biopsy in 953 lesions. The presence of histopathologic invasive carcinoma was noted at subsequent surgical biopsy. RESULTS: By performing the X2 test, independent significant DCIS underestimation rates by biopsy device were 20.4{\%} (76 of 373) of lesions diagnosed at large-core biopsy and 11.2{\%} (107 of 953) of lesions diagnosed at vacuum-assisted biopsy (P < .001); by lesion type, 24.3{\%} (35 of 144) of masses and 12.5{\%} (148 of 1,182) of microcalcifications (P < .001); and by number of specimens per lesion, 17.5{\%} (88 of 502) with 10 or fewer specimens and 11.5{\%} (92 of 799) with greater than 10 (P < .02). DCIS underestimations increased with lesion size. CONCLUSION: DCIS underestimations were 1.9 times more frequent with masses than with calcifications, 1.8 times more frequent with large-core biopsy than with vacuum-assisted biopsy, and 1.5 times more frequent with 10 or fewer specimens per lesion than with more than 10 specimens per lesion.",
keywords = "Biopsies, technology, Breast neoplasms, diagnosis, Breast, biopsy, Breast, diseases, Breast, ducts",
author = "Jackman, {R. J.} and F. Burbank and Parker, {S. H.} and Evans, {W. P.} and Lechner, {M. C.} and Richardson, {T. R.} and Smid, {A. A.} and Borofsky, {H. B.} and Lee, {C. H.} and Goldstein, {H. M.} and Schilling, {K. J.} and Wray, {A. B.} and Brem, {R. F.} and Helbich, {T. H.} and Lehrer, {D. E.} and Adler, {S. J.}",
year = "2001",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "218",
pages = "497--502",
journal = "Radiology",
issn = "0033-8419",
publisher = "Radiological Society of North America Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Stereotactic breast biopsy of nonpalpable lesions

T2 - Determinants of ductal carcinoma in situ underestimation rates

AU - Jackman, R. J.

AU - Burbank, F.

AU - Parker, S. H.

AU - Evans, W. P.

AU - Lechner, M. C.

AU - Richardson, T. R.

AU - Smid, A. A.

AU - Borofsky, H. B.

AU - Lee, C. H.

AU - Goldstein, H. M.

AU - Schilling, K. J.

AU - Wray, A. B.

AU - Brem, R. F.

AU - Helbich, T. H.

AU - Lehrer, D. E.

AU - Adler, S. J.

PY - 2001

Y1 - 2001

N2 - PURPOSE: To measure the effect of biopsy device, probe size, mammographic lesion type, lesion size, and number of samples obtained per lesion on the ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) underestimation rate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nonpalpable breast lesions at 16 institutions received a histologic diagnosis of DCIS after 14-gauge automated large-core biopsy in 373 lesions and after 14- or 11-gauge directional vacuum-assisted biopsy in 953 lesions. The presence of histopathologic invasive carcinoma was noted at subsequent surgical biopsy. RESULTS: By performing the X2 test, independent significant DCIS underestimation rates by biopsy device were 20.4% (76 of 373) of lesions diagnosed at large-core biopsy and 11.2% (107 of 953) of lesions diagnosed at vacuum-assisted biopsy (P < .001); by lesion type, 24.3% (35 of 144) of masses and 12.5% (148 of 1,182) of microcalcifications (P < .001); and by number of specimens per lesion, 17.5% (88 of 502) with 10 or fewer specimens and 11.5% (92 of 799) with greater than 10 (P < .02). DCIS underestimations increased with lesion size. CONCLUSION: DCIS underestimations were 1.9 times more frequent with masses than with calcifications, 1.8 times more frequent with large-core biopsy than with vacuum-assisted biopsy, and 1.5 times more frequent with 10 or fewer specimens per lesion than with more than 10 specimens per lesion.

AB - PURPOSE: To measure the effect of biopsy device, probe size, mammographic lesion type, lesion size, and number of samples obtained per lesion on the ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) underestimation rate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nonpalpable breast lesions at 16 institutions received a histologic diagnosis of DCIS after 14-gauge automated large-core biopsy in 373 lesions and after 14- or 11-gauge directional vacuum-assisted biopsy in 953 lesions. The presence of histopathologic invasive carcinoma was noted at subsequent surgical biopsy. RESULTS: By performing the X2 test, independent significant DCIS underestimation rates by biopsy device were 20.4% (76 of 373) of lesions diagnosed at large-core biopsy and 11.2% (107 of 953) of lesions diagnosed at vacuum-assisted biopsy (P < .001); by lesion type, 24.3% (35 of 144) of masses and 12.5% (148 of 1,182) of microcalcifications (P < .001); and by number of specimens per lesion, 17.5% (88 of 502) with 10 or fewer specimens and 11.5% (92 of 799) with greater than 10 (P < .02). DCIS underestimations increased with lesion size. CONCLUSION: DCIS underestimations were 1.9 times more frequent with masses than with calcifications, 1.8 times more frequent with large-core biopsy than with vacuum-assisted biopsy, and 1.5 times more frequent with 10 or fewer specimens per lesion than with more than 10 specimens per lesion.

KW - Biopsies, technology

KW - Breast neoplasms, diagnosis

KW - Breast, biopsy

KW - Breast, diseases

KW - Breast, ducts

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035144642&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0035144642&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 218

SP - 497

EP - 502

JO - Radiology

JF - Radiology

SN - 0033-8419

IS - 2

ER -