Comparison of molecular markers expression in vacuum-assisted biopsies and surgical specimens of human breast carcinomas

Status quo and development trend of breast biopsy technology

Triple assessment is a standard method for assessment of breast diseases, which includes clinical evaluation, radiographic assessment and pathological assessment. Biopsy for breast disease is the gold standard for pathological assessment, including incisional biopsy, excisional biopsy, core needle biopsy, vacuum-assisted biopsy and bite biopsy. With the continuous advancement of diagnostic and treatment technology for breast cancer, collection of diseased tissue has also undergone a gradual transition from traditional open surgery to biopsy. This review summarizes the current situation and development of breast biopsy technology to provide an insight into the latest details such as the safety and reliability as the basis for selection of the most appropriate techniques for specific settings.

Assessment accuracy of core needle biopsy for hormone receptors in breast cancer: a meta-analysis

The concordance of hormone receptors (HR) status identified by core needle biopsy (CNB) compared with excisional biopsy (EB) has been widely reported, but results were extremely variable and underpowered. To derive a more precise estimation of assessment accuracy of CNB for HR in breast cancer, we conducted a meta-analysis of all eligible studies comparing concordance or disconcordance between CNB and EB for HR status. Eligible articles were identified by search of databases including PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Chinese Biomedical Literature database for the period up to November 2011, and the reference lists of identified studies, relevant reviews, meta-analyses, and abstracts from recent conference proceedings were reviewed as a augmented searching. Finally, a total of 21 articles involving 2,450 patients for estrogen receptor (ER) and 2,448 patients for progesterone receptor (PR) were included and analyzed in this analysis. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies checklist. The overall aggrement between CNB and EB were 92.8 % for ER (κ = 0.78) and 85.2 % for PR (κ = 0.66), indicating a good agreement in PR and a better result in ER. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 97.3 % (95 % CI 96.0-98.2) and 82.0 % (95 % CI 68.2-90.6) for ER, and the corresponding values for PR were 92.3 % (95 % CI 88.2-95.1) and 76.5 % (95 % CI 64.6-85.3), respectively. The pooled positive likelihood ratios was 5.39 % (95 % CI 2.92-9.97) and the negative likelihood ratios was 0.03 % (95 % CI 0.02-0.05) for ER, the corresponding values for PR were 3.93 % (95 % CI 2.53-6.11) and 0.10 % (95 % CI 0.07-0.16), respectively. In summary, although a good agreement was observed between CNB and EB for both ER and PR, we still suggest that negative HR testing results should be interpreted with caution or repeated on EB.