Clinical performance of the tomosynthesis guided breast biopsy

Purpose: To evaluate the clinical performance of tomosynthesis guided vacuum assisted breast biopsy (TVAB) and compare it to conventional stereotactic vacuum assisted biopsy (SVAB). Materials and Methods: From June 2013 to May 2017, all women who underwent breast biopsy were included in this retrospective study. Between June 2013 and April 2015, lesions were biopsied with SVAB. Since June 2015, all biopsies were performed with DVAB. Patient demographics, rates of aborted procedures, causes of abortions, as well as the radiologic and pathologic properties of lesions were compared between these two groups. The significance level was accepted as p<0.05. Results: From June 2013 to May 2017, 336 patients with 352 lesions (mean age 56.05±10.54) underwent SVAB and 516 patients with 555 lesions (mean age 56.05±10.27) underwent DVAB. 5.4% of SVAB and 4.1% of DVAB were cancelled due to non-visualization or difficult lesion location. Eight patients underwent DVAB had self-limiting vasovagal reaction; none reported in SVAB group. The rates of high-contrast lesions with calcifications were 83% in SVAB and 74% in DVAB while the rates of low-contrast lesions without calcifications were 17% and 26% in SVAB and DVAB, respectively (p=0.002). No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups with respect to histological results of lesions (p=0.074). Invasive breast cancers mostly presented as low contrast lesions while ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) as high contrast lesions (p<0.001). Conclusion: DVAB has a better clinical performance compared to SVAB because it can successfully biopsy not only the high contrast lesions detected on mammography but also the low contrast lesions only visualized on tomosynthesis. While high contrast lesions have more DCIS, low contrast lesions are often associated with a high rate of invasive breast cancer. DVAB can replace SVAB in routine clinic practice but at a cost of low rate of vasovagal reaction.

[1]  Rhian Gabe,et al.  The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned? , 2004, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[2]  Per Skaane,et al.  Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis , 2016, Breast Cancer.

[3]  Lara A Hardesty,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis utilization in the United States: a survey of physician members of the Society of Breast Imaging. , 2014, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[4]  C. Waldherr,et al.  Tomosynthesis-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: A feasibility study , 2016, European Radiology.

[5]  E. Zanelli,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis-guided biopsy: preliminary experience , 2016 .

[6]  S. Ciatto,et al.  Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. , 2013, The Lancet. Oncology.

[7]  Alan C. Evans,et al.  False-negative breast screening assessment: what lessons can we learn? , 2001, Clinical radiology.

[8]  C A Kelsey,et al.  Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183,134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico. , 1998, Radiology.

[9]  Laurie L Fajardo,et al.  Cancer cases from ACRIN digital mammographic imaging screening trial: radiologist analysis with use of a logistic regression model. , 2009, Radiology.

[10]  G J Welle,et al.  Stereotactic breast biopsy: recumbent biopsy using add-on upright equipment. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[11]  M. Mainiero,et al.  Detection of mammographically occult architectural distortion on digital breast tomosynthesis screening: initial clinical experience. , 2014, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[12]  Kenneth G. A. Gilhuijs,et al.  Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results , 2009, European Radiology.

[13]  R. J. Jackman,et al.  Stereotactic vacuum‐assisted breast biopsy in 2874 patients: A multicenter study , 2004, Cancer.

[14]  A. Holland,et al.  Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice. , 2014, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[15]  W T McGivney,et al.  The National Comprehensive Cancer Network , 1998, Cancer.

[16]  T M Svahn,et al.  Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of diagnostic accuracy. , 2012, The British journal of radiology.

[17]  G J Welle,et al.  Adaptation of an add-on stereotaxic breast biopsy unit: use of a dedicated reclinable mammography chair. , 1997, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[18]  F J Gilbert,et al.  Incident round cancers: what lessons can we learn? , 1998, Clinical radiology.

[19]  Paola Clauser,et al.  New diagnostic tools for breast cancer , 2017, memo - Magazine of European Medical Oncology.

[20]  Tor D Tosteson,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[21]  Paola Clauser,et al.  Impact on the recall rate of digital breast tomosynthesis as an adjunct to digital mammography in the screening setting. A double reading experience and review of the literature. , 2016, European journal of radiology.

[22]  L. Philpotts,et al.  Tomosynthesis-detected Architectural Distortion: Management Algorithm with Radiologic-Pathologic Correlation. , 2016, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[23]  S Field,et al.  Second round cancers: how many were visible on the first round of the UK National Breast Screening Programme, three years earlier? , 1998, Clinical radiology.

[24]  Ying-Hua Yu,et al.  Diagnostic value of vacuum-assisted breast biopsy for breast carcinoma: a meta-analysis and systematic review , 2010, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[25]  S. Parker,et al.  Performing a breast biopsy with a directional, vacuum-assisted biopsy instrument. , 1997, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[26]  Bonnie N Joe,et al.  Suspicious Findings at Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Occult to Conventional Digital Mammography: Imaging Features and Pathology Findings , 2015, The breast journal.

[27]  Maria Bernathova,et al.  Diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis with a wide scan angle compared to full-field digital mammography for the detection and characterization of microcalcifications. , 2016, European journal of radiology.

[28]  Simone Schrading,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: initial experiences and comparison with prone stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy. , 2015, Radiology.