Stereotactically guided breast biopsy: a review

The aims of this review are to compare and contrast the available stereotactic equipment, and to describe the variety of needle types used and their affect on pathological results and subsequent patient management. Initial stereotactic devices were “added-on” to analogue mammography units and have been replaced by prone or ducubitus equipment using digital image acquisition. Biopsies use either 14-G core biopsy (CB) needles or vacuum-assisted biopsies (VAB). Vacuum-assisted biopsy systems consistently out-perform 14-G CB with reduced need for diagnostic or multi-treatment surgery. The false-negative rate is 8% for 14-G CB compared with 0.7% for VAB. There is a risk of underestimating the disease present for lesions of uncertain malignant potential (Cat B3) and suspicious of malignancy (Cat B4) results with 25% of patients with a B3 biopsy found to have cancer at subsequent surgery and 66% of those with a B4 biopsy. A CB diagnosis of in situ malignancy is upgraded to invasive disease at surgery in 15-36% of patients undergoing CB and of the order of 10% with VAB. A high degree of diagnostic accuracy and hence safe patient care can only be achieved by meticulous attention to technique and multi-disciplinary cooperation

A prediction model for underestimation of invasive breast cancer after a biopsy diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ: based on 2892 biopsies and 589 invasive cancers

Background: Patients with a biopsy diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) might be diagnosed with invasive breast cancer at excision, a phenomenon known as underestimation. Patients with DCIS are treated based on the risk of underestimation or progression to invasive cancer. The aim of our study was to expand the knowledge on underestimation and to develop a prediction model. Methods: Population-based data were retrieved from the Dutch Pathology Registry and the Netherlands Cancer Registry for DCIS between January 2011 and June 2012. Results: Of 2892 DCIS biopsies, 21% were underestimated invasive breast cancers. In multivariable analysis, risk factors were high-grade DCIS (odds ratio (OR) 1.43, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.05–1.95), a palpable tumour (OR 2.22, 95% CI: 1.76–2.81), a BI-RADS (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System) score 5 (OR 2.36, 95% CI: 1.80–3.09) and a suspected invasive component at biopsy (OR 3.84, 95% CI: 2.69–5.46). The predicted risk for underestimation ranged from 9.5 to 80.2%, with a median of 14.7%. Of the 596 invasive cancers, 39% had unfavourable features. Conclusions: The risk for an underestimated diagnosis of invasive breast cancer after a biopsy diagnosis of DCIS is considerable. With our prediction model, the individual risk of underestimation can be calculated based on routinely available preoperatively known risk factors (https://www.evidencio.com/models/show/1074)