| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Breast Imaging |
1 Departments of Radiology (R.J.J., S.I.F., M.J.S.)
2 Pathology (J.R.S.)
3 Surgery (F.A.M.), Palo Alto Medical Clinic, 300 Homer Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301
4 Department of Pathology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, Calif (K.W.N.).
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 TOP Abstract IntroductionMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Stereotactic, 14-gauge, automated, large-core needle biopsy (LCNB) was performed in 483 consecutive nonpalpable breast lesions. Excision was advised for the 143 carcinomas, 25 atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) lesions, and five radial scars. Mammographic follow-up was advised for the benign lesions without a repeat biopsy.
RESULTS: Of the 310 benign lesions, 259 underwent mammographic follow-up at 6–85 months (median, 55 months) without repeat biopsy, 48 underwent repeat biopsy and three were lost to follow-up. On the basis of the histologic diagnosis of carcinoma at surgical biopsy, diagnosis with LCNB was not correct (ie, disease was underestimated at histologic examination) in 14 (58%) of 24 ADH lesions and two (40%) of five radial scars. Two (1.2%) of 161 lesions with a final diagnosis of carcinoma were benign at LCNB but malignant at repeat biopsy (ie, false-negative findings at LCNB). Repeat biopsy was prompted by mammographic progression at 6 and 18 months after LCNB.
CONCLUSION: The false-negative rate with LCNB was 1.2% in this study and 4.0% in the literature. The presence of carcinoma in ADH and radial scar lesions was often underestimated.
Index terms: Biopsies, technology, 00.126 • Breast, biopsy, 00.126 • Breast, diseases, 00.31, 00.32 • Breast, ducts, 00.3119 • Breast, radial scar, 00.3119 • Breast neoplasms, diagnosis, 00.126
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractIntroductionMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
Several investigators have reported false-negative rates of 0.3%–8.2% (mean, 4.2%) in LCNB series with incomplete surgical and mammographic follow-up (9–16). Mammographic follow-up for a minimum of 2–3 years and repeat biopsy of lesions showing progression are needed before actual false-negative rates can be determined.
The purpose of our study was to determine the rate and causes of false-negative findings and histologic underestimates at stereotactic LCNB of 483 consecutive nonpalpable breast lesions in which repeat biopsy or long-term mammographic follow-up was performed.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractIntroductionMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
-year period, NLBB was performed for the initial diagnosis in an additional 17 (3%) of the 500 nonpalpable mammographically detected lesions that were sampled for biopsy. NLBB was performed because of suggestion by the radiologist in seven lesions, preference by the patient in four lesions, and preference by the surgeon in three lesions. The other three lesions could not be adequately visualized during attempted LCNB and, thus, NLBB was performed instead. None of the patients underwent percutaneous biopsy of a nonpalpable lesion by means of fine-needle aspiration or with ultrasonographic (US) guidance. Each patient gave informed consent before undergoing a biopsy. Our LCNB technique has been previously described (17). In brief, stereotactic biopsy was performed with the patients on a prone table (Mammotest; Fischer Imaging, Denver, Colo) by using a 14-gauge needle (ACN 1416; Manan Medical Products, Northbrook, Ill) and a long-throw (2.3 cm excursion) biopsy gun (Biopty; Bard Urological, Covington, Ga). At least five specimens were obtained in 480 of the 483 lesions. Overall, we obtained a mean of 8.1 specimens (range, two to 20 specimens) per lesion. We obtained mammographic images on radiographic film rather than on a digital receptor during this study. We did not obtain radiographs of the specimens to verify extraction of calcifications until June 30, 1993. Radiographs of the specimen were obtained in 70 (30%) of the 234 lesions detected as calcifications.
Mammographic lesions were divided into two groups: calcifications (without masses) and masses. Masses included asymmetric densities, areas of architectural distortion, and other space-occupying lesions (all with or without associated calcifications). The maximum diameter of each lesion was measured on the mammogram.
Histologic diagnoses of the core biopsy specimens were divided into three categories: carcinoma, high-risk lesions, and benign lesions. Carcinomas were subcategorized as invasive ductal carcinoma, invasive lobular carcinoma, and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). High-risk lesions were those known to have a high prevalence of carcinoma at excision, and the diagnosis was based on the histologic characteristics seen at LCNB alone, without regard to correlation of mammographic and histologic findings. Our high-risk lesions were ADH and radial scars. Benign lesions (ie, those that were not carcinoma or high-risk lesions) were subcategorized as fibrocystic change, fibrosis, fibroadenoma, lymph node, and nonspecific benign lesion. Any patient with a histologic diagnosis of carcinoma, high-risk lesion, benign lesion of concern to the pathologist, or benign lesion thought to be discordant with the mammographic findings was advised to undergo lesion excision. Two pathologists (K.W.N., J.R.S.) retrospectively reviewed the histologic slides from lesions diagnosed as either high-risk or benign at LCNB and in which subsequent surgical excision was performed. The diagnosis was reached by consensus. At the retrospective review, the pathologists knew each lesion was later excised but did not know the excisional diagnosis. Whenever a discrepancy existed between the histologic features of the LCNB specimen and those of the excisional biopsy specimen, the slides were reviewed a second time to ensure interpretive consistency. The same histologic criteria were used in both the prospective and retrospective reviews (17). All slides were examined for the histologic presence of calcifications.
The mammographic findings were compared with the retrospective histologic findings from LCNB for carcinoma (n = 143), high-risk lesion (n = 30), and benign lesion (n = 310); the histologic subtypes were included for each category (Table 1).
|
Any patient with a benign histologic diagnosis who did not subsequently undergo repeat biopsy was advised to undergo mammographic follow-up. Patients with a percutaneous diagnosis of fibroadenoma or lymph node were thought to be very unlikely to have a sampling error and were advised to undergo bilateral mammography at 12 months. Patients with other benign lesions were advised to undergo unilateral mammography of the biopsied breast 6 months after biopsy (17). Patients with all benign lesions were advised to undergo bilateral mammography at 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, and 72 months after biopsy. If mammographic follow-up showed a lesion to have grown or contain more calcifications, the patient was advised to undergo repeat biopsy with either LCNB or NLBB.
Our protocol for mammographic follow-up evolved as we gained experience. From the start, patients were informed that mammographic follow-up was necessary for a histologically benign lesion, and referring physicians received the radiologist's written biopsy report requesting mammographic follow-up at either 6 or 12 months. Because of poor compliance in the 1st year, we adopted more vigorous efforts to achieve the desired follow-up. The potential of a biopsy sampling error and the attendant need for mammographic follow-up were more clearly emphasized to each patient before the biopsy was performed, both orally and in writing.
With the agreement of all the referring physicians in our multispecialty clinic, the primary responsibility for contacting patients in need of mammographic follow-up was shifted from the referring physicians to one individual trained in medical record procedures. This "follow-up analyst" was also responsible for contacting patients in need of follow-up because of a variety of abnormal imaging studies (primarily mammograms) and cytologic studies (mainly Papanicolaou smears).
Patients in need of follow-up mammography were sent a reminder letter telling them when it should be performed. If no appointment was made within 2 weeks, a reminder phone call was made offering assistance with scheduling. If no appointment was made within 1 more week, a certified letter (with return receipt) was sent as the third reminder. If there was still no response, the referring physician called or wrote the patient. Occasionally, one radiologist (R.J.J.) who performed the LCNBs also directly contacted the patient. All contacts were documented in the medical record. If there was still no compliance with our request, the four- or five-step contact procedure was usually repeated every 6–12 months until the process was completed. With the agreement of most referring physicians outside our multispecialty clinic, that same process was extended to their patients. The process was also repeated each time follow-up mammography (usually done annually) was due. Each contact was considered to be complete when mammography was performed, the lesion underwent repeat biopsy, the referring physician documented that follow-up mammography was no longer medically indicated, the patient's firm "informed refusal" was documented, the patient was deceased, or the patient had moved to an unknown location and was lost to follow-up.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractIntroductionMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
Repeat biopsy was performed before mammographic follow-up in 12 of the 310 benign lesions 1–17 weeks after LCNB: Surgical biopsy was performed in 11 lesions, and vigorous repeat LCNB was performed in one lesion. Six of the 12 benign lesions were incidentally resected when a carcinoma (proved with LCNB) in the same breast underwent a therapeutic operation (mastectomy in five lesions and lumpectomy in one lesion). In each of those six breasts, the benign lesion and the malignant lesion were discretely separate at mammography. Diagnostic repeat biopsy in the other six lesions was performed because of hyperplasia with histologic features bordering on ADH early in our experience (n = 4), histologic slides negative for calcifications (n = 1), and a hemangioma with histologic features bordering on angiosarcoma (n = 1). All 12 lesions that underwent repeat biopsy were diagnosed as benign at histologic examination. When these 12 lesions are eliminated, 298 benign lesions were eligible for mammographic follow-up.
Mammographic follow-up was performed in 295 (99%) of the 298 benign lesions without immediate repeat biopsy. The initial post-LCNB mammogram was not obtained for 13–18 months in 33 (11%) of the 295 lesions and for more than 18 months in 11 (4%).
Repeat biopsy was performed after mammographic follow-up in 36 (12%) of the 295 benign lesions: Surgical biopsy was performed in 19 lesions, and vigorous repeat LCNB was performed in 17. Five of the 36 benign lesions were incidentally resected when a carcinoma in the same breast (proved with LCNB of a new mammographic lesion in four cases and by means of diagnostic lumpectomy of a new palpable mass in one case) underwent a therapeutic operation: Mastectomy was performed in two cases, and therapeutic lumpectomy was performed in three cases. No progression was evident in those five benign lesions on mammograms obtained 36–48 months after LCNB that preceded incidental resection. There was mammographic progression in 26 (9%) of the 295 benign lesions for which mammographic follow-up was performed. This occurred in 19 (12%) of 157 calcification lesions and seven (5%) of 138 mass lesions. All 26 lesions underwent repeat biopsy, nine with NLBB and 17 with vigorous repeat LCNB.
Two of the 26 lesions with mammographic progression were diagnosed as carcinoma at repeat biopsy: One was invasive ductal carcinoma, and one was DCIS. These were the only false-negative findings obtained with LCNB in the retrospective study, and the patient, lesion, and procedural variables are shown in Table 2. Surgical excision was performed in the five remaining benign lesions with mammographic follow-up despite mammographic stability because of physician concern (n = 3), patient concern (n = 1), and incidental resection during reduction mammoplasty (n = 1). All five lesions were diagnosed as benign at repeat biopsy.
|
|
Excisional biopsy was not initially recommended after an LCNB diagnosis of ADH in the other 21 lesions until we became aware of the high-risk potential. In nine such lesions, repeat biopsy was not performed for 9–53 months after LCNB. The mammogram obtained immediately before repeat biopsy showed the lesion to have mammographically progressed (n = 7) or mammographically decreased (n = 2) compared to the lesion on the pre-LCNB mammogram. In the other 12 lesions, repeat biopsy was performed (either because the high-risk potential was known or because of incidental resection with a carcinoma in the same breast) 1–8 weeks after LCNB without a post-LCNB mammogram.
Repeat biopsy of the five radial scar lesions, the variables of which are shown in Table 2, revealed carcinoma in two (40%): One lesion was DCIS, and one was invasive ductal carcinoma. The high-risk potential became evident during the course of this study, and repeat biopsy was performed 6–34 months after LCNB.
Therapeutic surgery was performed in 75 of the 76 invasive ductal carcinomas (with one patient found to have metastatic disease after LCNB), 10 of 11 invasive lobular carcinomas (with one elderly patient treated with tamoxifen only), and 54 of 56 DCIS lesions (with one elderly patient with two areas of DCIS treated with tamoxifen only). Therapeutic surgery of the 54 DCIS lesions revealed invasive ductal carcinoma (in addition to DCIS) in eight (15%).
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractIntroductionMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
Compared to NLBB, percutaneous LCNB is a less invasive, less costly alternative for histologic diagnosis of mammographically detected breast lesions. Parker et al (18) tested various core biopsy methods and then established a standardized approach (5) that included a prone biopsy table, stereotactic guidance system, long-throw (2.3 cm excursion) biopsy gun, 14-gauge cutting needles, and removal of five or more tissue samples per lesion (Parker SH, written communication, 1991). The accuracy of that standardized 14-gauge LCNB approach has been evaluated with NLBB immediately after core biopsy. The overall miss rate for LCNB was 2%–4% (mean, 3.3%) (5–7), and the false-negative rate was 2.9%–6.7% (mean, 4.4%) (5–8) (Table 4).
|
-year study period. Among the 483 lesions were 298 histologically benign lesions eligible for mammographic follow-up. With a costly, time-consuming process that is probably not practical to adopt as a standard approach, we accomplished at least one mammographic follow-up in 295 (99%) of the 298 lesions.
The terminology for the histologic accuracy of LCNB is evolving. We agree with a recent joint task force report that a carcinoma diagnosed with LCNB should be categorized as a true-positive, not false-positive, finding if residual carcinoma is not found in the surgical specimen (4). As previously stated, "If one applies the same histologic criteria, a false-positive diagnosis based on LCNB findings should be no more likely than one based on findings at excision" (17).
A few years after standardized LCNB was introduced, it became evident that a high percentage of lesions diagnosed as ADH at LCNB were cancers at excision (17,19). Burbank (20,21) introduced the term "underestimate" to apply to such cases, and that terminology has been adopted by others (13,22,23). We categorize LCNB histologic diagnoses that are not carcinoma at LCNB but are frequently carcinoma at excision, without regard to correlation between mammographic and histologic findings, as high-risk lesions. Excision is required. If carcinoma is found at excision, the high-risk lesion has become a histologic underestimate. The histologic findings from LCNB are not accurate enough to be true-positive findings or erroneous enough to be false-negative findings. High-risk histologic underestimate cases do not fit into the categories needed to determine sensitivity and specificity.
ADH diagnosed with LCNB is the prototypic high-risk LCNB lesion. Our histologic underestimation rate of 58% for lesions with an LCNB diagnosis of ADH is similar to the 31%–88% rate found in other series (10–17,19,20,24–27).
We think that radial scars diagnosed with LCNB should also be categorized as high-risk lesions requiring excision. Radial scars detected with mammography and diagnosed with excisional biopsy often have involvement with invasive carcinoma, in situ carcinoma, and/or atypical hyperplasia (28–31). Controversy exists, however, about whether radial scar is a risk factor for the development of invasive carcinoma and about its role as a precursor to carcinoma (32–36). Our underestimation rate of 40% for lesions with an LCNB diagnosis of radial scar is based on five lesions, with two of the five diagnosed as malignant at NLBB (Table 2). Lee et al (12) found malignancy at excision in one of four LCNB radial scar lesions. Only with routine excision of lesions said to be radial scar at LCNB will the true underestimation rate be determined.
If DCIS is diagnosed with LCNB, but invasive carcinoma is found at excision, we consider the LCNB to be both a true-positive finding (for the presence of carcinoma) and a histologic underestimate (for the severity of the carcinoma). Our histologic underestimation rate of 15% for LCNB lesions diagnosed as DCIS is similar to the 15%–36% rate found in other series (11,14,16,17,20,37). Histologic underestimation has also been found with DCIS at NLBB and invasive carcinoma at reexcision (38,39).
A benign diagnosis made on the basis of histologic findings at LCNB is considered to be a false-negative finding if the specimen obtained at repeat biopsy contains carcinoma. With LCNB of 483 consecutive, nonpalpable breast lesions, we evaluated false-negative findings in the 307 benign lesions for which either repeat biopsy (n = 48) or long-term mammographic follow-up (n = 259) was performed. Three (1%) of the 310 benign lesions were lost to follow-up.
Diagnostic repeat biopsy of a lesion is expensive and performed in two circumstances. First, immediate diagnostic repeat biopsy, without mammographic follow-up, is recommended if a high-risk lesion is found, if the histologic diagnosis is not definitively benign or malignant, if there is discordance between a benign histologic diagnosis and the mammographic findings, or (sometimes) if the radiograph of the specimen from a lesion detected as calcifications does not reveal calcifications. The repeat biopsy will reveal the carcinomas underestimated as high-risk lesions and the immediate false-negative lesions. Excluding the six benign lesions that had immediate incidental resection along with a carcinoma in the same breast, we did an immediate diagnostic repeat biopsy in six benign lesions and an immediate or delayed diagnostic repeat biopsy in 29 high-risk lesions, for an initial diagnostic repeat biopsy rate of 7% (35 of 483 lesions).
Second, delayed diagnostic repeat biopsy is performed if a histologically benign lesion exhibits substantial mammographic progression. The repeat biopsy will reveal delayed false-negative lesions, which are the most crucial biopsy problem. When the missed malignancy is eventually diagnosed with repeat biopsy after mammographic progression, there is potential for the cancer to have progressed in size, stage, or both. If we exclude the six benign lesions in which delayed incidental resection was performed (five along with a carcinoma in the same breast and one during reduction mammoplasty), we had a delayed diagnostic repeat biopsy rate of 6% (30 of 483 lesions). Two of those 30 lesions were malignant at repeat biopsy. Thus, two (1.2%) of 161 lesions with a final diagnosis of carcinoma were false-negative findings at LCNB (Table 2). The false-negative calcification lesion showed mammographic progression at the initial follow-up performed at 6 months. The false-negative mass lesion exhibited mammographic stability at 12 months and progression at 18 months after LCNB. Fajardo (9) reported malignant diagnoses 6, 8, and 13 months after false-negative findings were obtained at LCNB. All were stage I invasive ductal carcinomas. Lee et al (12) reported two delayed false-negative lesions. A mass showed progression on a mammogram obtained 6 months after LCNB, and repeat biopsy revealed a stage I invasive ductal carcinoma. A cluster of calcifications was initially stable and showed mammographic progression 24 months after LCNB. Repeat biopsy showed DCIS with microinvasion.
The histologic diagnosis from the initial biopsy can be incorrect because of either removal of inadequate material or histologic misinterpretation. Because we were trying to evaluate the accuracy of the biopsy sampling and not the pathologists' interpretation, we reinterpreted the histologic slides of difficult cases to ensure interpretive consistency. In our study, the three lesions in which the LCNB diagnosis was retrospectively upgraded from fibrocystic change to ADH and that were subsequently diagnosed as carcinoma at repeat biopsy were followed-up mammographically after LCNB (Table 2). If the histologic diagnosis of these three lesions had not been retrospectively upgraded, the false-negative rate would have been 3.1% and not 1.2%.
When we combine our experience with reports in the literature, we think the most important post-LCNB mammographic follow-up is done 6 months after the LCNB. We think mammographic follow-up is needed for at least 36 months and are currently pursuing it for 72 months after LCNB.
In the 310 lesions diagnosed as benign at LCNB, false-negative findings occurred in one of 162 calcification lesions and one of 148 masses. Correlation of the histologic findings from NLBB with those from LCNB showed false-negative findings in two of 26 nonspecific benign lesions and none of the benign lesions with specific diagnoses of fibrocystic change (n = 150), fibrosis (n = 88), fibroadenoma (n = 39), or lymph node (n = 7).
Other investigators, using the LCNB technique standardized by Parker et al (5), have preliminary false-negative rates of 0.3%–8.2% (mean, 4.2%) in series without complete surgical or mammographic follow-up (9–16) (Table 5). A more accurate determination of the false-negative rate in those series will require mammographic follow-up of all histologically benign lesions for at least 2–3 years and repeat biopsy of lesions with mammographic progression.
|
Our own data support including ADH and radial scars as high-risk LCNB lesions. Because carcinoma was found at excision of lesions diagnosed at LCNB as atypical lobular hyperplasia in one of three lesions by Lee et al (12), one of three lesions by Liberman et al (13), and two of four lesions by Fuhrman et al (16), we have included atypical lobular hyperplasia as a high-risk lesion in Table 5. There were no atypical lobular hyperplasia lesions in our series. As more experience is gained, it is possible that other LCNB histologic diagnoses (eg, lobular carcinoma in situ, papilloma, and/or phyllodes tumor) will be added to the list of high-risk lesions requiring excision.
In conclusion, the false-negative rate for 14-gauge stereotactic LCNB was 1.2% in our series (of 483 consecutive unselected cases) and 0.3%–8.2% (mean, 4.0%) in the literature. Experience suggests that post-LCNB mammographic follow-up of most histologically benign lesions should begin at 6 months and continue for at least 36 months. LCNB findings of ADH and radial scar often underestimate the presence of carcinoma, and excisional biopsy is required.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
|
Footnotes |
|---|
From the 1995 RSNA scientific assembly.
Abbreviations: ADH = atypical ductal hyperplasia DCIS = ductal carcinoma in situ LCNB = large-core needle biopsy NLBB = needle-localized breast biopsy
Author contributions: Guarantors of integrity of entire study, R.J.J., K.W.N., J.R.S.; study concepts and design, R.J.J.; definition of intellectual content, R.J.J.; literature research, R.J.J., J.R.S.; clinical studies, all authors; data acquisition, R.J.J., K.W.N., J.R.S.; data analysis, R.J.J.; manuscript preparation, editing, and review, all authors.
Received June 10, 1998;
revision requested July 27, 1998; revision received August 27, 1998;
accepted October 17, 1998.
|
References |
|---|
|
TOPAbstractIntroductionMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  R. J. Jackman, F. A. Marzoni Jr., and J. Rosenberg False-Negative Diagnoses at Stereotactic Vacuum-Assisted Needle Breast Biopsy: Long-Term Follow-Up of 1,280 Lesions and Review of the Literature Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2009; 192(2): 341 - 351. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. R. Eby, J. E. Ochsner, W. B. DeMartini, K. H. Allison, S. Peacock, and C. D. Lehman Frequency and Upgrade Rates of Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia Diagnosed at Stereotactic Vacuum-Assisted Breast Biopsy: 9-Versus 11-Gauge Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2009; 192(1): 229 - 234. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. R. Eby, J. E. Ochsner, W. B. DeMartini, K. H. Allison, S. Peacock, and C. D. Lehman Is Surgical Excision Necessary for Focal Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia Found at Stereotactic Vacuum-Assisted Breast Biopsy? Ann. Surg. Oncol., November 1, 2008; 15(11): 3232 - 3238. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. R. Porembka, R. L. Abraham, J. A. Sefko, A. D. Deshpande, D. B. Jeffe, and J. A. Margenthaler Factors Associated with Lymph Node Assessment in Ductal Carcinoma in situ: Analysis of 1988-2002 Seer Data Ann. Surg. Oncol., October 1, 2008; 15(10): 2709 - 2719. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. F. Brem, M. C. Lechner, R. J. Jackman, J. A. Rapelyea, W. P. Evans, L. E. Philpotts, J. Hargreaves, and S. Wasden Lobular Neoplasia at Percutaneous Breast Biopsy: Variables Associated with Carcinoma at Surgical Excision Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2008; 190(3): 637 - 641. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Pandey, M. J. Kornstein, W. Shank, and E. S. de Paredes Columnar Cell Lesions of the Breast: Mammographic Findings with Histopathologic Correlation RadioGraphics, October 1, 2007; 27(suppl_1): S79 - S89. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. C. Smitt and K. Horst Association of Clinical and Pathologic Variables with Lumpectomy Surgical Margin Status after Preoperative Diagnosis or Excisional Biopsy of Invasive Breast Cancer Ann. Surg. Oncol., March 1, 2007; 14(3): 1040 - 1044. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. H. Youk, E.-K. Kim, M. J. Kim, J. Y. Lee, and K. K. Oh Missed Breast Cancers at US-guided Core Needle Biopsy: How to Reduce Them RadioGraphics, January 1, 2007; 27(1): 79 - 94. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. K. Sydnor, J. D. Wilson, T. A. Hijaz, H. D. Massey, and E. S. Shaw de Paredes Underestimation of the Presence of Breast Carcinoma in Papillary Lesions Initially Diagnosed at Core-Needle Biopsy Radiology, December 1, 2006; 242(1): 58 - 62. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M F Dillon, C M Quinn, E W McDermott, A O'Doherty, N O'Higgins, and A D K Hill Diagnostic accuracy of core biopsy for ductal carcinoma in situ and its implications for surgical practice. J. Clin. Pathol., July 1, 2006; 59(7): 740 - 743. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. J. Jackman and J. Rodriguez-Soto Breast microcalcifications: retrieval failure at prone stereotactic core and vacuum breast biopsy--frequency, causes, and outcome. Radiology, April 1, 2006; 239(1): 61 - 70. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. K. You, E.-K. Kim, J. Y. Kwak, M. J. Kim, K. K. Oh, B.-W. Park, and W. I. Yang Focal Fibrosis of the Breast Diagnosed by a Sonographically Guided Core Biopsy of Nonpalpable Lesions: Imaging Findings and Clinical Relevance J. Ultrasound Med., October 1, 2005; 24(10): 1377 - 1384. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. K. Koskela, M. Sudah, M. H. Berg, V. J. Karja, P. K. Mustonen, V. Kataja, and R. S. Vanninen Add-on Device for Stereotactic Core-Needle Breast Biopsy: How Many Biopsy Specimens Are Needed for a Reliable Diagnosis? Radiology, September 1, 2005; 236(3): 801 - 809. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. M. Lomoschitz, T. H. Helbich, M. Rudas, G. Pfarl, K. F. Linnau, A. Stadler, and R. J. Jackman Stereotactic 11-gauge Vacuum-assisted Breast Biopsy: Influence of Number of Specimens on Diagnostic Accuracy Radiology, September 1, 2004; 232(3): 897 - 903. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
X. Chen, C. D. Lehman, and K. E. Dee MRI-Guided Breast Biopsy: Clinical Experience with 14-Gauge Stainless Steel Core Biopsy Needle Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2004; 182(4): 1075 - 1080. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. S. Burnside, D. L. Rubin, R. D. Shachter, R. E. Sohlich, and E. A. Sickles A Probabilistic Expert System That Provides Automated Mammographic-Histologic Correlation: Initial Experience Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2004; 182(2): 481 - 488. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M Kennedy, A V Masterson, M Kerin, and F Flanagan Pathology and clinical relevance of radial scars: a review J. Clin. Pathol., October 1, 2003; 56(10): 721 - 724. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. B. Gordon, F. A. Gagnon, and L. Lanzkowsky Solid Breast Masses Diagnosed as Fibroadenoma at Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsy: Acceptable Rates of Growth at Long-term Follow-up Radiology, October 1, 2003; 229(1): 233 - 238. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. Kerlikowske, R. Smith-Bindman, B.-M. Ljung, and D. Grady Evaluation of Abnormal Mammography Results and Palpable Breast Abnormalities Ann Intern Med, August 19, 2003; 139(4): 274 - 284. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. J. Jackman and F. A. Marzoni Jr. Stereotactic Histologic Biopsy with Patients Prone: Technical Feasibility in 98% of Mammographically Detected Lesions Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2003; 180(3): 785 - 794. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Pandelidis, D. Heilman, D. Jones, K. Stough, J. Trapeni, and Y. Suliman Accuracy of 11-Gauge Vacuum-Assisted Core Biopsy of Mammographic Breast Lesions Ann. Surg. Oncol., January 1, 2003; 10(1): 43 - 47. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. J. Brenner, R. J. Jackman, S. H. Parker, W. P. Evans III, L. Philpotts, B. M. Deutch, M. C. Lechner, D. Lehrer, P. Sylvan, R. Hunt, et al. Percutaneous Core Needle Biopsy of Radial Scars of the Breast: When Is Excision Necessary? Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2002; 179(5): 1179 - 1184. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. L. Rosen, R. C. Bentley, J. A. Baker, and M. S. Soo Imaging-Guided Core Needle Biopsy of Papillary Lesions of the Breast Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2002; 179(5): 1185 - 1192. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. J. Jackman, R. L. Birdwell, and D. M. Ikeda Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia: Can Some Lesions Be Defined as Probably Benign after Stereotactic 11-gauge Vacuum-assisted Biopsy, Eliminating the Recommendation for Surgical Excision? Radiology, August 1, 2002; 224(2): 548 - 554. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Wunderbaldinger, G. Wolf, K. Turetschek, and T. H. Helbich Comparison of Sitting Versus Prone Position for Stereotactic Large-Core Breast Biopsy in Surgically Proven Lesions Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2002; 178(5): 1221 - 1225. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Georgian-Smith, C. D'Orsi, E. Morris, C. F. Clark Jr., E. Liberty, and C. D. Lehman Stereotactic Biopsy of the Breast Using an Upright Unit, a Vacuum-Suction Needle, and a Lateral Arm-Support System Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2002; 178(4): 1017 - 1024. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. Shaffer, I. Khalkhali, and S. B. Haber Sestamibi Scanning of Breast Cancer J. Nucl. Med., January 1, 2002; 43(1): 125 - 126. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H M Verkooijen, P H M Peeters, I H M Borel Rinkes, R M Pijnappel, A Kaya, W P T. M Mali, and T J M V van Vroonhoven Risk factors for cancellation of stereotactic large core needle biopsy on a prone biopsy table Br. J. Radiol., November 1, 2001; 74(887): 1007 - 1012. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. R. Margolin, J. W. T. Leung, R. P. Jacobs, and S. R. Denny Percutaneous Imaging-Guided Core Breast Biopsy: 5 Years' Experience in a Community Hospital Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2001; 177(3): 559 - 564. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Sklair-Levy, T. H. Samuels, C. Catzavelos, P. Hamilton, and R. Shumak Stromal Fibrosis of the Breast Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2001; 177(3): 573 - 577. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. K. Kuhl, N. Morakkabati, C. C. Leutner, A. Schmiedel, E. Wardelmann, and H. H. Schild MR Imaging-guided Large-Core (14-Gauge) Needle Biopsy of Small Lesions Visible at Breast MR Imaging Alone Radiology, July 1, 2001; 220(1): 31 - 39. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Liberman, C. L. Benton, D. D. Dershaw, A. F. Abramson, L. R. LaTrenta, and E. A. Morris Learning Curve for Stereotactic Breast Biopsy: How Many Cases Are Enough? Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2001; 176(3): 721 - 727. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. J. Brenner, L. W. Bassett, L. L. Fajardo, D. D. Dershaw, W. P. Evans III, R. Hunt, C. Lee, I. Tocino, P. Fisher, M. McCombs, et al. Stereotactic Core-Needle Breast Biopsy: A Multi-institutional Prospective Trial Radiology, March 1, 2001; 218(3): 866 - 872. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. J. Jackman, F. Burbank, S. H. Parker, W. P. Evans III, M. C. Lechner, T. R. Richardson, A. A. Smid, H. B. Borofsky, C. H. Lee, H. M. Goldstein, et al. Stereotactic Breast Biopsy of Nonpalpable Lesions: Determinants of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ Underestimation Rates Radiology, February 1, 2001; 218(2): 497 - 502. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. L. R. Darling, D. N. Smith, S. C. Lester, C. Kaelin, D.-L. G. Selland, C. M. Denison, P. J. DiPiro, D. I. Rose, E. Rhei, and J. E. Meyer Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia and Ductal Carcinoma In Situ as Revealed by Large-Core Needle Breast Biopsy: Results of Surgical Excision Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2000; 175(5): 1341 - 1346. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. E. Philpotts, C. H. Lee, L. J. Horvath, R. C. Lange, D. Carter, and I. Tocino Underestimation of Breast Cancer with II-Gauge Vacuum Suction Biopsy Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2000; 175(4): 1047 - 1050. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Liberman, L. A. Ernberg, A. Heerdt, M. F. Zakowski, E. A. Morris, L. R. LaTrenta, A. F. Abramson, and D. D. Dershaw Palpable Breast Masses: Is There a Role for Percutaneous Imaging-Guided Core Biopsy? Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2000; 175(3): 779 - 787. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. E. Philpotts, N. A. Shaheen, K. S. Jain, D. Carter, and C. H. Lee Uncommon High-Risk Lesions of the Breast Diagnosed at Stereotactic Core-Needle Biopsy: Clinical Importance Radiology, September 1, 2000; 216(3): 831 - 837. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Guenin, C. H. Lee, L. E. Philpotts, L. J. Horvath, and I. Tocino The Low False-Negative Rate for Stereotactic Breast Biopsy Dr Lee and colleagues respond: Radiology, August 1, 2000; 216(2): 609 - 610. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Liberman and M. P. Sama Cost-Effectiveness of Stereotactic 11-Gauge Directional Vacuum-Assisted Breast Biopsy Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2000; 175(1): 53 - 58. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Liberman Percutaneous Imaging-Guided Core Breast Biopsy: State of the Art at the Millennium Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2000; 174(5): 1191 - 1199. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. S. Greenberg and D. H. Smetherman Invited Commentary RadioGraphics, October 1, 1999; 19(90001): 36 - 37. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. H. Lee, L. E. Philpotts, L. J. Horvath, and I. Tocino Follow-up of Breast Lesions Diagnosed as Benign with Stereotactic Core-Needle Biopsy: Frequency of Mammographic Change and False-Negative Rate Radiology, July 1, 1999; 212(1): 189 - 194. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. J. Jackman and R. L. Lamm Stereotactic Histologic Biopsy in Breasts with Implants Radiology, January 1, 2002; 222(1): 157 - 164. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |
