Efficiency of Core Biopsy for BI-RADS-5 Breast Lesions

Cost-effectiveness of stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy for nonpalpable breast lesions

PURPOSE

To examine the potential cost-savings of stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy (SVAB) over open surgical biopsy (OSB) in diagnosis of nonpalpable lesions on mammography and to estimate the cost-saving effect on lesions at different levels of malignant probability.

METHODS

This retrospective study was approved by our Institutional Review Board. We retrospectively reviewed 276 (33.8 %) SVAB and 541 (66.2 %) OSB medical records at a medical center. Direct costs included patients' self-paid and national health insurance claim charges. Indirect costs were calculated using sick days, average salary, and age-adjusted employment rate. One-way and two-way sensitivity analyses were conducted. Lesion classification was determined by the assessment categories of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS), 4th or 5th editions.

RESULTS

SVAB decreased the direct cost by $90.3 (10.1 %) per diagnosis. The indirect cost was decreased by $560.2 (96.0 %). Overall, SVAB saved 43.9 % of resource utilization for each biopsy. Taking the cost of the subsequent malignant surgery into account, from the healthcare providers' perspective, SVAB was cost-effective if a lesion had less than 19 % likelihood of malignancy. From the societal perspective, SVAB reduced productivity loss for all the lesions. Based on the positive predictive value of the BI-RADS categories, SVAB was more suitable for the lesions of category 4A and category 3, resulting in greater savings in both medical and societal resources.

CONCLUSIONS

SVAB is a cost-effective diagnostic option for nonpalpable breast lesions. The cost-saving effect is greater for the lesions of category 4A and category 3.

Accuracy and outcomes of stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy for diagnosis and management of nonpalpable breast lesions

Stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy (SVAB) is an alternative method of breast biopsy for nonpalpable lesions detected by mammography. Considering the diagnostic effectiveness, a direct comparison of SVAB and open surgical biopsy (OSB) is lacking. We performed a retrospective review of 276 (33.8%) SVAB and 541 (66.2%) OSB to compare the diagnostic accuracy and the total number of procedures the patients underwent. The negative predictive values of OSB and SVAB were 99.77% and 99.61%, and their false-negative rates were 0.96% and 4.76%, respectively. SVAB, as the first-line biopsy method, obviated 92.3% of operations. All malignancies diagnosed using SVAB could be treated with single therapeutic surgery. By contrast, 48% of malignancies of OSB group received two operations. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category used at the study correlated well with the percentage of malignancy and can thus be used to predict biopsy results. Our study concluded that SVAB is reliable for diagnosing nonpalpable breast lesions and is the better biopsy method for categories 3 and 4A lesions, which reduces the benign surgery rate. For lesions with a higher likelihood of malignancy, BI-RADS 4B, 4C and 5, SVAB has an advantage over OSB, which lowers the total number of operations for malignancy treatment.

Intraoperative ultrasound versus mammographic needle localization for ductal carcinoma in situ

BACKGROUND

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) often requires some method of localization to achieve breast-conserving therapy. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of intraoperative ultrasound versus mammographic needle localization (MNL) for partial mastectomy in DCIS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were collected from a Breast Cancer Surgery Database. All DCIS cases undergoing partial mastectomy (PM) were identified. Margin status, re-excision rates, and cost were determined for both groups.

RESULTS

A total of 155 patients undergoing PM for DCIS were identified from the database. In the 96 patients undergoing ultrasound-guided PM (Group 1), the positive margin rate was 10.4%, and close margins (<1 mm) were observed in 22.9% after initial surgery. There were 59 patients who underwent MNL (Group 2); the positive margin rate was 11.9%, and close margins were observed in 27.1%. The difference between positive and close margins in Group 1 versus Group 2 was not statistically significant. The rate of re-excision was 20.8% for Group 1 and 30.5% for Group 2, resulting in 1.23 and 1.37 operations per patient, respectively. The average cost of an intraoperative ultrasound at our institution was $933 and $1858 for MNL (excluding cost of radiologic interpretation), a difference of $925 per case.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed equivalent rates of positive margins and re-excision between intraoperative ultrasound and MNL when performing PM for nonpalpable DCIS. Considering the more invasive nature and increased cost of MNL, we consider surgeon-performed intraoperative ultrasound, when possible, the more cost-effective and practical procedure for patients with DCIS.