alexa Ultrasound-guided diagnostic breast biopsy methodology: retrospective comparison of the 8-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy approach versus the spring-loaded 14-gauge core biopsy approach.
Genetics & Molecular Biology

Genetics & Molecular Biology

Journal of Molecular Biomarkers & Diagnosis

Author(s): Povoski SP, Jimenez RE, Wang WP

Abstract Share this page

Abstract BACKGROUND: Ultrasound-guided diagnostic breast biopsy technology represents the current standard of care for the evaluation of indeterminate and suspicious lesions seen on diagnostic breast ultrasound. Yet, there remains much debate as to which particular method of ultrasound-guided diagnostic breast biopsy provides the most accurate and optimal diagnostic information. The aim of the current study was to compare and contrast the 8-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy approach and the spring-loaded 14-gauge core biopsy approach. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was done of all ultrasound-guided diagnostic breast biopsy procedures performed by either the 8-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy approach or the spring-loaded 14-gauge core biopsy approach by a single surgeon from July 2001 through June 2009. RESULTS: Among 1443 ultrasound-guided diagnostic breast biopsy procedures performed, 724 (50.2\%) were by the 8-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy technique and 719 (49.8\%) were by the spring-loaded 14-gauge core biopsy technique. The total number of false negative cases (i.e., benign findings instead of invasive breast carcinoma) was significantly greater (P = 0.008) in the spring-loaded 14-gauge core biopsy group (8/681, 1.2\%) as compared to in the 8-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy group (0/652, 0\%), with an overall false negative rate of 2.1\% (8/386) for the spring-loaded 14-gauge core biopsy group as compared to 0\% (0/148) for the 8-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy group. Significantly more (P < 0.001) patients in the spring-loaded 14-gauge core biopsy group (81/719, 11.3\%) than in the 8-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy group (18/724, 2.5\%) were recommended for further diagnostic surgical removal of additional tissue from the same anatomical site of the affected breast in an immediate fashion for indeterminate/inconclusive findings seen on the original ultrasound-guided diagnostic breast biopsy procedure. Significantly more (P < 0.001) patients in the spring-loaded 14-gauge core biopsy group (54/719, 7.5\%) than in the 8-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy group (9/724, 1.2\%) personally requested further diagnostic surgical removal of additional tissue from the same anatomical site of the affected breast in an immediate fashion for a benign finding seen on the original ultrasound-guided diagnostic breast biopsy procedure. CONCLUSIONS: In appropriately selected cases, the 8-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy approach appears to be advantageous to the spring-loaded 14-gauge core biopsy approach for providing the most accurate and optimal diagnostic information.
This article was published in World J Surg Oncol and referenced in Journal of Molecular Biomarkers & Diagnosis

Relevant Expert PPTs

Relevant Speaker PPTs

Recommended Conferences

  • Global Meeting on Dual Diagnosis And Addiction
    Taipei, Taiwan June 19-21, 2017
  • 2nd World Congress on Molecular Genetics and Gene Therapy
    July 03-05, 2017 Thailand, Bangkok
  • 9th International Conference and Expo on Molecular & Cancer Biomarkers
    August 23-24, 2017 Birmingham, UK
  • 2nd International Conference on Medical Imaging and Diagnosis
    London, UK
  • 22nd International Conference on Cancer Drugs and Therapeutics
    Paris, France
  • International Conference on Oncology Nursing and Cancer Care
    Singapore City, Singapore
  • World Summit on Cell Signalling and Cancer Therapy
    Toronto, Canada
  • International Conference on Radiology and Imaging
    New York, USA

Relevant Topics

Peer Reviewed Journals
 
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2017-18
 
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

Agri, Food, Aqua and Veterinary Science Journals

Dr. Krish

agrifoodaquavet@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Clinical and Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

clinical_biochem@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals

Ronald

business@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemical Engineering and Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

chemicaleng_chemistry@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Earth & Environmental Sciences

Katie Wilson

environmentalsci@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

engineering@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science and Health care Journals

Andrea Jason

generalsci_healthcare@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics and Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

genetics_molbio@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

immuno_microbio@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Informatics Journals

Stephanie Skinner

omics@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Material Sciences Journals

Rachle Green

materialsci@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Mathematics and Physics Journals

Jim Willison

mathematics_physics@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

medical@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

neuro_psychology@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

John Behannon

pharma@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

social_politicalsci@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

 
© 2008-2017 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version