Cost comparison between ultrasound-guided 14-g large core breast biopsy and open surgical biopsy: an analysis for Austria

PURPOSE

To examine the budget impact of ultrasound-guided 14-g large core breast biopsy (US-guided LCBB) by comparing the costs of US-guided LCBB and open surgical biopsy (OSB); to calculate the cost savings attributable to US-guided LCBB; and to assess the frequency with which US-guided LCBB obviates the need for an OSB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a retrospective study, we reviewed 399 suspicious breast lesions on which US-guided LCBB and OSB or, in cases of benign histology, clinical follow-up, were performed. Cost savings were calculated using nationally allowed flat rates (A-drg) and patient charges. Costs were measured from both, a hospital and a socioeconomic perspective. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were simulated to assess the extent of achievable cost savings.

RESULTS

Overall cost savings for US-guided LCBB over OSB were euro 977 (euro 2,337/euro 3,314) per case from a hospital perspective, resulting in a total cost decrease of 30% for the diagnosis of suspicious breast lesions. From a socioeconomic perspective, cost savings were euro 1,542 (euro 2,600/euro 4,142) per case, resulting in a 37% reduction in biopsy cost. US-guided LCBB obviated the need for a surgical procedure in 240 (60%) of 399 women. In all four sensitivity analyses, costs of US-guided LCBB remained lower than that of OSB.

CONCLUSION

From an economic perspective, US-guided LCBB is highly recommended for the diagnosis of suspicious breast lesions, as this procedure reduces the cost of diagnosis substantially. In Austria, annual cost savings would be euro 18.5 million.

The use of positive core wash cytology to estimate potential risk of needle tract seeding of breast cancer: directional vacuum-assisted biopsy versus automated core needle biopsy

BACKGROUND

A disadvantage of the image-guided core needle biopsy is that needle tract seeding may occur and affect the local recurrence and overall survival rates of patients after breast-conserving surgery, although the chance is small. The purpose of this study was to compare the potential risk of needle tract seeding of breast cancer from ultrasonographically guided needle biopsies that were performed with a directional vacuum-assisted device and an automated core needle gun.

METHODS

The study compared the biopsies of 148 breast cancers performed using ultrasonographically guided core needle biopsy with the biopsies of 105 breast cancers performed using the vacuum suction probe. The potential risk of needle tract seeding of the breast cancer was defined by the cytological results derived from the needle wash material. The atypical/indeterminate, suspicious/probably malignant, and malignant categories were considered to represent positive cases.

RESULTS

There were significantly fewer positive cytological findings derived from the needle wash material with the directional vacuum-assisted device (33%) than with the automated core needle gun (69%) (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The use of the directional vacuum-assisted device significantly decreases the potential risk of needle tract seeding of breast cancer after an ultrasonographically guided needle biopsy.

Accuracy of ultrasound-guided, large-core needle breast biopsy

Ultrasound-guided, large-core needle biopsy (US-LCNB) of suspicious breast lesions is acknowledged as less invasive and less expensive and less time consuming than surgical biopsy, and provides a histologic diagnosis with a comparable high degree. US-LCNB has been proven to help reduce the number of unnecessary surgeries for benign disease. Its limitations, however, are false-negative results and underestimation of disease. Thus, the demand for breast teams is to carefully adhere to the principles of triple assessment and imaging-histologic correlation, and follow-up of lesions with a specific benign histology after biopsy. Also, the acceptance of guidelines and rigorous quality controls help to reliably minimize the delay in the diagnosis of breast cancer in patients with false-negative biopsies. This paper aims to summarize the equipment and methods as well as the benefits and limitations of US-LCNB. Also, guidelines of quality assessment are suggested. Finally, recent developments which may help to overcome the limitations of US-LCNB will be discussed, i.e., directional vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB), three-dimensional (3D) US-guided biopsy, as well as the use of tissue harmonic imaging (THI) and compound imaging (CI) during biopsy.