OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic outcomes of ultrasonography-guided core needle biopsy (US-CNB), US-guided vacuum-assisted biopsy (US-VAB), and stereotactic-guided vacuum-assisted biopsy (S-VAB) for diagnosing suspicious breast microcalcification. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 336 cases of suspicious breast microcalcification in patients who subsequently underwent image-guided biopsy. US-CNB was performed for US-visible microcalcifications associated with a mass (n = 28), US-VAB for US-visible microcalcifications without an associated mass (n = 59), and S-VAB for mammogram-only visible lesions (n = 249). Mammographic findings, biopsy failure rate, false-negative rate, and underestimation rate were analyzed. Histological diagnoses and the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) categories were reported. RESULTS: Biopsy failure rates for US-CNB, US-VAB, and S-VAB were 7.1% (2/28), 0% (0/59), and 2.8% (7/249), respectively. Three false-negative cases were detected for US-CNB and two for S-VAB. The rates of biopsy-diagnosed ductal carcinoma in situ that were upgraded to invasive cancer at surgery were 41.7% (5/12), 12.9% (4/31), and 8.6% (3/35) for US-CNB, US-VAB, and S-VAB, respectively. Sonographically visible lesions were more likely to be malignant (66.2% [51/77] vs. 23.2% [46/198]; p < 0.001) or of higher BI-RADS category (61.0% [47/77] vs. 22.2% [44/198]; p < 0.001) than sonographically invisible lesions. CONCLUSION: Ultrasonography-guided vacuum-assisted biopsy is more accurate than US-CNB when suspicious microcalcifications are detected on US. Calcifications with malignant pathology are significantly more visible on US than benign lesions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bae et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: