Evaluation of two different vacuum-assisted breast biopsy systems: Mammotome® system 11G/8G vs. ATEC® system 12G/9G

Background Breast cancer screening programs have been established worldwide and early detection of breast cancer has increased steadily. The most common way to confirm dignity of non-palpable and sonographically-occult suspicious findings on mammography is the stereotactically-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy Purpose To compare two stereotactically guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy systems measuring time effectiveness and quality of harvested material in clinical practice. Material and Methods One hundred and forty-six patients presenting with suspicious microcalcifications on mammography were included in the study. Biopsies were carried out with either the Mammotome® system (11-gauge and 8-gauge) or the ATEC® system (12-gauge and 9-gauge). Lesions with a diameter <15 mm on mammography were biopsied with 11-gauge or 12-gauge devices whereas lesions >15 mm were targeted with 8-gauge and 9-gauge. Mammotome® system 8-gauge device was used in 34 patients, the 11-gauge system in 37 patients. The ATEC® system 9-gauge system was used in 37 patients and 12-gauge in 38 patients. Time was taken, focusing on preparing the system, time of collecting the samples, preparing the samples, and cleaning the site. During the biopsies 24 samples were taken. The histologic quality of the tissue samples was judged by a pathologist in a blinded fashion according to a specimen grading classification concerning tissue fragmentation, artefacts, and the adequacy of the tissue for diagnosis. Results The median overall time for the Mammotome® system was 879 s (11-gauge) and 934 s (8-gauge) and for the ATEC® system 671 s (12-gauge) and 673 s (9-gauge). The ATEC® system displays a significantly shorter overall time for small and large biopsy devices (U-test, P < 0.001). Concerning the mean time difference of the overall time comparing small and large systems the ATEC® system was 267.6 s faster using the small and 244.8 s faster using the large system. Comparing the histologic quality of tissue samples the Mammotome® system shows significantly higher values for the large and the small system (Chi-square test, P < 0.001). Conclusion Both biopsy systems meet all requirements for daily practice and confirm the diagnosis of suspicious microcalcifications. The ATEC® system was observed to be faster but this difference of about 250 s might not be relevant in daily practice. The Mammotome® system provides a better histologic quality of tissue samples.

[1]  W. Jonat,et al.  Interventional bleeding, hematoma and scar-formation after vacuum-biopsy under stereotactic guidance: Mammotome(®)-system 11 g/8 g vs. ATEC(®)-system 12 g/9 g. , 2012, European journal of radiology.

[2]  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.

[3]  R. Schulz-Wendtland,et al.  Percutaneous tissue acquisition: a treatment for breast cancer? Vacuum-assisted biopsy devices are not indicated for extended tissue removal. , 2008, European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation.

[4]  A. Vincent-Salomon,et al.  Vacuum-assisted large-core needle biopsy (VLNB) improves the management of patients with breast microcalcifications - analysis of 1009 cases. , 2008, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[5]  M Heller,et al.  Factors associated with one step surgery in case of non-palpable breast cancer. , 2007, European journal of radiology.

[6]  J. Youk,et al.  Breast lesions with imaging-histologic discordance during US-guided 14G automated core biopsy: can the directional vacuum-assisted removal replace the surgical excision? Initial findings , 2007, European Radiology.

[7]  I. Schreer,et al.  False-negative results after stereotactically guided vacuum biopsy , 2007, European Radiology.

[8]  T. Decker,et al.  Stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsies in 500 women with microcalcifications: radiological and pathological correlations , 2006 .

[9]  K. Fahrbach,et al.  A comparison of the accuracy of two minimally invasive breast biopsy methods: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis , 2006, Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

[10]  M. Acebal-Blanco,et al.  Sonographically guided 11‐g directional vacuum‐assisted breast biopsy as an alternative to surgical excision: utility and cost study in probably benign lesions , 2004, Acta radiologica.

[11]  T. Helbich,et al.  Stereotactic 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: a validation study. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[12]  L. Liberman,et al.  Learning curve for stereotactic breast biopsy: how many cases are enough? , 2001, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[13]  T. Helbich,et al.  Randomized in vitro and in vivo evaluation of different biopsy needles and devices for breast biopsy. , 1999, Clinical radiology.

[14]  L. Liberman,et al.  Calcification retrieval at stereotactic, 11-gauge, directional, vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. , 1998, Radiology.

[15]  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.

[16]  J. Meyer,et al.  Stereotactic breast biopsy of clustered microcalcifications with a directional, vacuum-assisted device. , 1997, Radiology.

[17]  S. Parker,et al.  Stereotactic breast biopsy: improved tissue harvesting with the Mammotome. , 1996, The American surgeon.

[18]  K D Hopper,et al.  CT percutaneous biopsy guns: comparison of end-cut and side-notch devices in cadaveric specimens. , 1995, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[19]  K. Hopper,et al.  Automated biopsy devices: a blinded evaluation. , 1993, Radiology.