Open versus stereotactic breast biopsy

Improving Quality Metric Adherence to Minimally Invasive Breast Biopsy among Surgeons Within a Multihospital Health Care System

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive breast biopsy (MIBB) is the procedure of choice for diagnosing breast lesions indeterminate for malignancy. Multihospital health care systems face challenges achieving systemwide adherence to standardized guidelines among surgeons with varying practice patterns. This study tested whether providing individual feedback about surgeons' use of MIBB to diagnose breast malignancies improved quality metric adherence across a large health care organization.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a prospective matched-pairs study to test differences (or lack of agreement) between periods before and after intervention. All analytical cases of primary breast cancer diagnosed during 2011 (period 1) and from July 2012 to June 2013 (period 2) across a multihospital health care system were reviewed for initial diagnosis by MIBB or open surgical biopsy. Open surgical biopsy was considered appropriate care only if MIBB could not be performed for reasons listed in the American Society of Breast Surgeons' quality measure for preoperative diagnosis of breast cancer. Individual and systemwide results of adherence to the MIBB metric during period 1 were sent to each surgeon in June 2012 and were later compared with period 2 results using McNemar's test of marginal homogeneity for matched binary responses.

RESULTS

Forty-six surgeons were evaluated on use of MIBB to diagnose breast cancer. In period 1, metric adherence for 100% of cases was achieved by 37 surgeons, for a systemwide 100% compliance rate of 80.4%. After notification of individual performance, 44 of 46 surgeons used MIBB solely or otherwise appropriate care to diagnose breast cancer, which improved systemwide compliance to 95.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing individual and systemwide performance results to surgeons can increase self-awareness of practice patterns when diagnosing breast cancer, leading to standardized best-practice care across a large health care organization.

Outcomes of patients who participate in randomized controlled trials compared to similar patients receiving similar interventions who do not participate

BACKGROUND

Some people believe that patients who take part in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) face risks that they would not face if they opted for non-trial treatment. Others think that trial participation is beneficial and the best way to ensure access to the most up-to-date physicians and treatments. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2005.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient participation in RCTs ('trial effects') independent both of the effects of the clinical treatments being compared ('treatment effects') and any differences between patients who participated in RCTs and those who did not. We aimed to compare similar patients receiving similar treatment inside and outside of RCTs.

SEARCH STRATEGY

In March 2007, we searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Methodology Register, SciSearch and PsycINFO for potentially relevant studies. Our search yielded 7586 new references. In addition, we reviewed the reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized studies and cohort studies with data on clinical outcomes of RCT participants and similar patients who received similar treatment outside of RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, assessed study quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 30 new non-randomized cohort studies (45 comparisons): no new RCTs were found. This update now includes five RCTs (yielding 6 comparisons) and 80 non-randomized cohort studies (130 comparisons), with 86,640 patients treated in RCTs and 57,205 patients treated outside RCTs. In the randomised studies, patients were invited to participate in an RCT or not; these comparisons provided limited information because of small sample sizes (a total of 412 patients) and the nature of the questions they addressed. When the results of RCTs and non-randomized cohorts that reported dichotomous outcomes were combined, there were 98 comparisons; there was also heterogeneity (P < 0.00001, I(2) = 42.2%) between studies. No statistical significant differences were found for 85 of the 98 comparisons. Eight comparisons reported statistically significant better outcomes for patients treated within RCTs, and five comparisons reported statistically significant worse outcomes for patients treated within RCTs. There was significant heterogeneity (P < 0.00001, I(2) = 58.2%) among the 38 continuous outcome comparisons. No statistically significant differences were found for 30 of the 38 comparisons. Three comparisons reported statistically significant better outcomes for patients treated within RCTs, and five comparisons reported statistically significant worse outcomes for patients treated within RCTs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review indicates that participation in RCTs is associated with similar outcomes to receiving the same treatment outside RCTs. These results challenge the assertion that the results of RCTs are not applicable to usual practice.

Outcomes of patients who participate in randomised controlled trials compared to similar patients receiving similar interventions who do not participate

BACKGROUND

Some people believe that patients who take part in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) face risks that they would not face if they opted for non-trial treatment. Others think that trial participation is beneficial and the best way to ensure access to the most up to date physicians and treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient participation in RCTs ('trial effects') independent both of the effects of the clinical treatments being compared ('treatment effects') and any differences between patients who participated in RCTs and those who did not.

SEARCH STRATEGY

In May 2001, we searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Methodology Register, SciSearch and PsycINFO for potentially relevant studies. Our search yielded over 10,000 references. In addition, we reviewed the reference lists of relevant articles and wrote to over 250 investigators to try to obtain further information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised studies and cohort studies with data on clinical outcomes of RCT participants and similar patients who received similar treatment outside of RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, assessed study quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five randomised studies (yielding 6 comparisons) and 50 non-randomised cohort studies (85 comparisons), with 31,140 patients treated in RCTs and 20,380 patients treated outside RCTs. In the randomised studies, patients were invited to participate in an RCT or not; these comparisons provided limited information because of small sample sizes (a total of 412 patients) and the nature of the questions they addressed. There was statistically significant heterogeneity (P < 0.002, I(2) = 36.2%) among the 73 dichotomous outcome comparisons; none of the potential explanatory factors we investigated helped to explain this heterogeneity. No statistically significant differences were found for 63 of the 73 comparisons. Eight comparisons reported statistically significant better outcomes for patients treated within RCTs, and two comparisons reported statistically significant worse outcomes for patients treated within RCTs. There were no statistically significant differences in heterogeneity (P = 0.53, I(2) = 0%) or in outcomes (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.12) of patients treated within and outside RCTs in the 18 comparisons which had used continuous outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review indicates that participation in RCTs is not associated with greater risks than receiving the same treatment outside RCTs. These results challenge the assertion that the results of RCTs are not applicable to usual practice.

Positive predictive value of BI-RADS categorization in an Asian population

The Breast Imaging Reporting And Data System (BI-RADS) categorization of mammograms is useful in estimating the risk of malignancy, thereby guiding management decisions. However, in Asian women, in whom breast density is increased, the sensitivity of mammography is correspondingly lower. We sought to determine the positive predictive value of BI-RADS categorization for malignancy in our Asian population and, hence, its value in helping us to choose between the various modalities for breast biopsy. We retrospectively reviewed all patients with occult breast lesions detected on mammography or ultrasound who underwent needle-localization open breast biopsy (NLOB) in our institution over a 6-year period. There were 470 biopsies in 427 patients; 16% of lesions were malignant. The positive predictive value of BI-RADS 4 and 5 lesions for cancer was 0.27 and 0.84, respectively. While most BI-RADS 5 mass lesions were invasive cancers, the majority of calcifications in this category were in situ carcinomas. We conclude that BI-RADS remains useful in aiding decision-making for biopsy in our Asian population. Based on positive predictive values, we recommend percutaneous breast biopsy for initial evaluation of lesions categorized as BI-RADS 4 or less. For BI-RADS 5 lesions with microcalcifications, open surgical biopsy as a diagnostic and therapeutic procedure may be more appropriate. In the case of a BI-RADS 5 lesion associated with a mass, initial percutaneous biopsy may be useful for diagnosis, followed by a planned single-stage surgical procedure as necessary.

Site-select procedure for non-palpable breast lesions: Feasibility study with a 15-mm cannula

BACKGROUND

As screening mammography becomes more commonplace, increasing numbers of non-palpable breast lesions are being found. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the feasibility, utility, and patient-perceived cosmesis and satisfaction of the Site-Select procedure in women with non-palpable breast lesions.

METHODS

Thirty-two consecutive patients underwent the Site-Select procedure, performed under local anesthesia by the same surgeon. The Site-Select procedure was included in a protocol for small (<15 mm) breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) grade 3 and 4 breast lesions. The pathologic diagnosis, specimen size, length of the procedure, perioperative and postoperative complications, subsequent interventions, patient satisfaction, and esthetic results were documented.

RESULTS

The Site-Select procedure was successful in all 32 patients (mean age, 56 years; range, 44-79 years). Mammographic lesions corresponded to microcalcifications in 21 patients, microcalcifications with architectural distortion in 4 patients, microcalcifications with nodules in 2 patients, and architectural distortion alone in 5 patients. The Site-Select procedure was used on an outpatient basis. Carcinomas were diagnosed in five patients (15.6%). No complications occurred during the procedure. The only postoperative complication was a hematoma, which did not require surgical drainage. No missed cancers were detected by follow-up mammography (mean 8 months later; range, 1-18 months). The esthetic results and patient satisfaction were excellent.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that the Site-Select procedure is an effective diagnostic method in selected cases. It has a low complication rate, high patient satisfaction, and excellent esthetic results.

Pseudoaneurysm of the breast: case study and review of literature

This paper describes the B-mode, colour and spectral Doppler appearances of breast pseudoaneurysm - a rare vascular complication of ultrasound-guided needle core biopsy. Previously reported cases of spontaneous and iatrogenic pseudoaneurysm of the breast are reviewed. The significance of this potentially serious complication is discussed with reference to the increasing use of imaging and image guided techniques in the diagnosis of breast disease.

Patient perceptions of breast biopsy procedures for screen-detected lesions

OBJECTIVE

This study was undertaken to compare patient perceptions of 2 common image-guided breast biopsy procedures on 3 main outcomes: decision making about which procedure to undergo, its convenience, and its side effects.

METHODS

Women who had either an excisional or ultrasound-guided core needle breast biopsy in 1997 for a screen-detected lesion had telephone interviews 1 to 3 months after the biopsy. Bivariate associations were tested by using chi(2) and t test statistics. Mulitvariate analyses were used to control for effects of demographic characteristics.

RESULTS

Most women (66%) could not remember being offered a choice of procedures, and of those who did have a choice, a higher proportion had an excisional biopsy. Only 2% reported being told the cost of the biopsy procedure. Women who had an excisional biopsy compared with those who had undergone a core needle biopsy reported statistically more hours and days off from work and reported more side effects 1 to 3 days after the biopsy (P<.05). Associations between side effects and type of biopsy procedure were unchanged when adjustment was made for demographic characteristics.

CONCLUSION

Women who had the ultrasound-guided needle biopsy reported significantly fewer side effects and needed less time off from work. When a suspicious lesion is noticed on a screening mammogram, it is important that women and their physicians discuss the benefits and risks of the various biopsy procedures before deciding how to proceed, allowing for informed choice.

Diagnosis of non-palpable breast cancer: a review

The literature on several methods of diagnosing non-palpable breast carcinoma has been reviewed. Skin projection and dye are methods not frequently used. Several aspects of FNA biopsy/cytology, ultrasound-directed methods, frozen section and MRI localization procedures are highlighted and comparisons are made. Much attention is being payed to needle localization breast biopsy and stereotactic core needle breast biopsy. The management of patients with mammographic abnormalities is shifting from needle localization to breast biopsy stereotactic core needle biopsy. Items of comparison between the two mentioned methods are accuracy, indications, complications and costs. The role of the ABBI system in the management of breast cancer has not yet been defined. A cooperative effort between the mammographer, surgeon and pathologist is critical to a successful image-guided breast biopsy programme.

Long-Term Outcomes of Stereotactic Breast Biopsies

Stereotactic core needle biopsies (SCNBs) are accurate and relatively convenient for the patient; however, the long-term follow-up of benign results has not been reported. All patients between 1993 and 1998 undergoing SCNB at a community-based hospital were entered into a registry. Follow-up was obtained by a retrospective analysis of the charts. Biopsies were performed on 865 lesions. One hundred thirty-one (15%) were malignant, 42 (5%) were suspicious for malignancy, 687 (79%) were benign, and five (1%) were lobular carcinoma in situ. Of the 42 patients with suspicious findings 38 underwent biopsy. Ten were malignant and 28 benign. Of the 687 patients with benign pathology, 377 had follow-up available with a mean length of 1.7 years. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of SCNB for benign lesions in our study are all 100 per cent. Eight lesions were worrisome and await final analysis. Of 687 patients with benign lesions 310 were lost to follow-up. This study suggests that patients with a benign diagnosis should be returned to routine mammography. These data also extend the reported follow-up to 1.7 years and establish an acceptable level of accuracy for SCNB. The lost patients remind us that follow-up is essential despite a benign diagnosis.

Evaluation of stereotactic core needle biopsy (SCNB) of the breast at a single institution

Stereotactic core needle biopsy (SCNB) has become a popular method for diagnosis of occult breast abnormalities. There are few large series of SCNB from a single institution. Data on patients undergoing SCNB for mammographic abnormalities were collected prospectively over 43 months at a university hospital. Mammographic findings were categorized as benign, probably benign, indeterminate, suspicious or malignant. For lesions with SCNB pathology that were non-diagnostic, showed atypical hyperplasia or malignancy (in situ or invasive), or were discordant with the pre-biopsy mammogram findings, surgical excision was recommended. Subsequent surgical pathology was reviewed. All remaining lesions were followed mammographically after SCNB. SCNB was performed on 692 lesions in 607 patients. There were 79 malignancies, for a positive SCNB rate of 11.4%. The 349 SCNB performed for benign, probably benign and indeterminate lesions on mammography had a positive SCNB rate of only 4%. Surgery was recommended for 127 (18.3%) lesions, while 565 (81.6%) were followed mammographically after SCNB. A compliance rate of 61 % for at least one follow-up mammogram was obtained, with a median follow-up of 17.2 months and with no cancers found. The sensitivity for malignancy with SCNB was 93%. SCNB provides a minimally invasive method to assess mammographic abnormalities. Abnormalities considered radiographically to be other than malignant or suspicious yielded few cancers. In this series a low positive SCNB rate resulted in no false negatives on mammographic follow-up. The optimal positive biopsy rate for SCNB is debatable.

Benign Diagnosis by Image-Guided Core-Needle Breast Biopsy

Image-guided core-needle breast biopsy (IGCNBB) is widely used to evaluate patients with abnormal mammograms; however, information is limited regarding the reliability of a benign diagnosis. The goal of this study was to demonstrate that a benign diagnosis obtained by IGCNBB is accurate and amenable to mammographic surveillance. Records of all patients evaluated by IGCNBB from July 1993 through July 1996 were reviewed. Biopsies were classified as malignant, atypical, or benign. All benign cases were followed by surveillance mammography beginning 6 months after IGCNBB. Of the 1110 patients evaluated by IGCNBB during the study period, 855 revealed benign pathology. A total of 728 of the 855 patients (85%) complied with the recommendation for surveillance mammography. A total of 196 IGCNBBs were classified as malignant; 59 cases were classified as atypical. The atypical cases were excluded from the statistical analysis. Only two patients have demonstrated carcinoma after a benign IGCNBB during the 2-year minimum follow-up period. The sensitivity and specificity of a benign result were 100.0 and 98.9 per cent, respectively. A benign diagnosis obtained by IGCNBB is accurate and therefore amenable to mammographic surveillance. The results of this study support IGCNBB as the preferred method of evaluating women with abnormal mammograms.

Initial experience with the advanced breast biopsy instrumentation system

BACKGROUND

Advanced breast biopsy instrumentation is a recently designed alternative to large-core stereotactic and open needle localized breast biopsies. This minimally invasive technique uses digital stereotactic imaging to perform excisional biopsies of suspicious, nonpalpable mammographic lesions. The role of the ABBI system in the management of breast cancer has not yet been defined.

METHODS

A retrospective review to evaluate the safety, accuracy, and cost effectiveness of the ABBI system as performed by a single surgeon on 107 patients from February 1, 1997 to January 31, 1998. We also discuss the use of the ABBI system as a therapeutic breast cancer technique. All patients had nonpalpable mammographic lesions. The mammographic abnormalities were either architectural distortion, microcalcifications, or stellate and nodular densities.

RESULTS

Using the ABBI stereotactic unit, 110 breast biopsies were performed in 107 patients during a 12-month period. The mammographic abnormality was accurately localized and successfully biopsied in 99% (109 of 110) of the procedures as confirmed by specimen radiographs, stereotactic images, permanent pathologic sections, and 6-month follow-up mammograms. There were no intraoperative complications. Two patients developed postoperative wound hematomas and there was 1 postoperative wound infection. Six in situ cancers and 21 invasive cancers were diagnosed with the ABBI system. Two additional invasive cancers were diagnosed in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ at reexcision. Four patients with invasive ductal carcinoma and 1 patient with ductal carcinoma in situ had negative margins on their stereotactic biopsies and did not undergo reexcision by lumpectomy or mastectomy. Each of the 4 patients with invasive ductal carcinoma underwent axillary node dissections with postoperative radiation therapy and chemotherapy or tamoxifen. During the study period, the average hospital patient charge for a stereotactic breast biopsy was $2,377.75, and for an open excisional needle localized biopsy it was $3,028.00 (P <0.05). The stereotactic breast biopsy offered a total cost savings of $71,527.50 in our series of patients.

CONCLUSION

Advanced breast biopsy instrumentation is a safe, accurate, and cost-effective method for performing breast biopsies. In addition, the ABBI system may be able to excise small in situ or invasive breast cancers.

The evolving practice pattern of the breast surgeon with disappearance of open biopsy for nonpalpable lesions

BACKGROUND

Recent advances in technology have prompted growth in the surgeon's armamentarium for breast biopsy. For nonpalpable, mammographically detected lesions, the options include stereotactic needle/wire localization and open biopsy (SNL/OBx), stereotactic needle core biopsy (SNCB), and directional, vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB; Mammotome).

METHODS

A review of 372 patients with 424 breast lesions biopsied by the same surgeon between January 1993 and August 1997 was performed.

RESULTS

SNCB and VAB procedures were less invasive and less morbid than SNL/OBx. Vacuum-assisted biopsy was superior to SNCB for sampling efficiency, with 74% of microcalcifications removed compared with 20% (P <0.0001). Additionally, underestimation of disease was seen with the SNCB technique, but not with VAB. Follow-up mammography found no false negative biopsies in any group. Over the 56 consecutive months, VAB progressively replaced SNL/OBx and SNCB as the procedure of choice.

CONCLUSION

A breast surgeon can use VAB to replace open biopsy and core needle procedures for the initial biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions.

Three years of experience with prospective randomized effectiveness studies

We developed methodology for prospective randomized effectiveness studies using a demonstration project at a multispecialty practice, health maintenance organization, and hospital in academic medical center. An operational unit called the effectiveness registry was developed to design and support comparisons of potential practice improvements with standard care. The studies differ from observational effectiveness studies in that they provide long-term follow-up of randomized comparison groups. Physician involvement in data collection is limited. No tests or observations are made other than those required for clinical care. Follow-up and data collection are modeled after tumor registry procedures. Patients who refuse randomization enter the study in whichever treatment arm they choose. The protocol for each study is approved by the institutional review board (IRB) before recruitment begins, and all patients, randomized and nonrandomized, sign an informed consent document. Between its beginning on October 7, 1993 and April 7, 1997, the IRB approved 14 trials. Four were terminated after entering at most a few patients. Recruitment is complete in four trials and continues in six. Randomization was accepted by 74% (596/804) of the patients. Over 800 patients in 10 studies are being followed at least annually. Major peer-reviewed journals have accepted reports of initial findings for two studies. Prospective randomized effectiveness studies are feasible in the multipractice setting and have potential to provide useful and reliable assessment of treatment outcomes. Collaborative arrangements between several institutions are needed to provide larger sample sizes.

Image-guided core-needle breast biopsy is an accurate technique to evaluate patients with nonpalpable imaging abnormalities

OBJECTIVE

The goal was to evaluate one institution's experience with image-guided core-needle breast biopsy (IGCNBB) and compare the pathologic results with wire-localized excisional breast biopsy (WLEBB) for patients with positive cores and the mammographic surveillance results for patients with negative cores.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

IGCNBB is becoming a popular, minimally invasive alternative to WLEBB in the evaluation of patients with nonpalpable abnormalities.

METHODS

This study includes all patients with nonpalpable breast imaging abnormalities evaluated by IGCNBB from July 1993 to February 1997. Patients with positive cores (atypical hyperplasia, carcinoma in situ, or invasive carcinoma) were evaluated by WLEBB. Patients with negative cores (benign histology) were followed with a standard mammographic protocol. IGCNBB results were compared with WLEBB results to determine the sensitivity and specificity for each IGCNBB pathologic diagnosis.

RESULTS

Of 1440 IGCNBBs performed during the study period, 1106 were classified as benign, and during surveillance follow-up only a single patient was demonstrated to have a carcinoma in the index part of the breast evaluated by IGCNBB (97.3% sensitivity, 99.7% specificity). IGCNBB demonstrated atypical hyperplasia in 72 patients, 5 of whom refused WLEBB. The remaining 67 patients were evaluated by WLEBB: nonmalignant findings were found in 31, carcinoma in situ was found in 25, and invasive carcinoma was found in 11 (100% sensitivity, 88.8% specificity). IGCNBB demonstrated carcinoma in situ in 84 patients; WLEBB confirmed carcinoma in situ in 54 and invasive carcinoma in 30 (65.4% sensitivity, 97.7% specificity). IGCNBB demonstrated invasive carcinoma in 178 patients. Three were lost to follow-up. On WLEBB, 173 of the remaining 175 had invasive carcinoma; the other 2 patients had carcinoma in situ (80.8% sensitivity, 99.8% specificity).

CONCLUSIONS

An IGCNBB that demonstrates atypical hyperplasia or carcinoma in situ requires WLEBB to define the extent of breast pathology. Mammographic surveillance for a patient with a benign IGCNBB is supported by nearly 100% specificity. An IGCNBB diagnosis of invasive carcinoma is also associated with nearly 100% specificity; therefore, these patients can have definitive surgical therapy, including axillary dissection or mastectomy, without waiting for the pathologic results of a WLEBB. Based on the authors' findings, IGCNBB can safely replace WLEBB in evaluating patients with nonpalpable breast abnormalities.