TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of prone and upright, stereotactic, and tomosynthesis-guided biopsies with secondary analysis of ultrasound-occult architectural distortions
AU - Cohen, Ethan O.
AU - Korhonen, Katrina E.
AU - Sun, Jia
AU - Leung, Jessica W.T.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology.
PY - 2023/9
Y1 - 2023/9
N2 - Objectives: Compare prone and upright, stereotactic, and tomosynthesis-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsies (prone DM-VABB, prone DBT-VABB, upright DM-VABB, and upright DBT-VABB) in a community-practice setting and review outcomes of ultrasound-occult architectural distortions (AD). Methods: Consecutive biopsies performed at two community-based breast centers from 2016 to 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Technical details of each procedure and patient outcomes were recorded. Separate analyses were performed for ultrasound-occult ADs. Two sample t-tests and Fisher’s exact test facilitated comparisons. Results: A total of 1133 patients underwent 369 prone DM-VABB, 324 prone DBT-VABB, 437 upright DM-VABB, and 123 upright DBT-VABB with 99.2%, 100%, 99.3%, and 99.2% success, respectively (p-values > 0.25). Mean lesion targeting times were greater for prone biopsy (minutes: 6.94 prone DM-VABB, 8.54 prone DBT-VABB, 5.52 upright DM-VABB, and 5.51 upright DBT-VABB; p-values < 0.001), yielding longer total prone procedure times for prone biopsy (p < 0.001). Compared to DM-VABB, DBT-VABB used fewer exposures (p < 0.001) and more commonly targeted AD, asymmetries, or masses (p < 0.001). Malignancy rates were similar between procedures: prone DM-VABB 22.4%, prone DBT-VABB 21.9%, upright DM-VABB 22.8%, and upright DBT-VABB 17.2% (p-values > 0.19). One hundred forty of the 1133 patients underwent 145 biopsies for ultrasound-occult AD (143 DBT-VABB and 2 DM-VABB). Biopsy yielded 27 malignancies and 47 high-risk lesions (74 of 145, 51%). Malignancy rate was 20.7% after surgical upgrade of one benign-discordant and two high-risk lesions. Conclusions: All biopsy procedure types were extremely successful. The 20.7% malignancy rate for ultrasound-occult AD confirms a management recommendation for tissue diagnosis. Upright biopsy was faster than prone biopsy, and DBT-VABB used fewer exposures than DM-VABB. Clinical relevance: Our results highlight important differences between prone DM-VABB, prone DBT-VABB, upright DM-VABB, and upright DBT-VABB. Moreover, the high likelihood of malignancy for ultrasound-occult AD will provide confidence in recommending tissue diagnosis in lieu of observation or clinical follow-up. Key Points: • Upright and prone stereotactic and tomosynthesis-guided breast biopsies were safe and effective in the community-practice setting. • The malignancy rate for ultrasound-occult architectural distortion of 20.7% confirms the management recommendation for biopsy. • Upright procedures were faster than prone procedures, and tomosynthesis-guided biopsy used fewer exposures than stereotactic biopsy.
AB - Objectives: Compare prone and upright, stereotactic, and tomosynthesis-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsies (prone DM-VABB, prone DBT-VABB, upright DM-VABB, and upright DBT-VABB) in a community-practice setting and review outcomes of ultrasound-occult architectural distortions (AD). Methods: Consecutive biopsies performed at two community-based breast centers from 2016 to 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Technical details of each procedure and patient outcomes were recorded. Separate analyses were performed for ultrasound-occult ADs. Two sample t-tests and Fisher’s exact test facilitated comparisons. Results: A total of 1133 patients underwent 369 prone DM-VABB, 324 prone DBT-VABB, 437 upright DM-VABB, and 123 upright DBT-VABB with 99.2%, 100%, 99.3%, and 99.2% success, respectively (p-values > 0.25). Mean lesion targeting times were greater for prone biopsy (minutes: 6.94 prone DM-VABB, 8.54 prone DBT-VABB, 5.52 upright DM-VABB, and 5.51 upright DBT-VABB; p-values < 0.001), yielding longer total prone procedure times for prone biopsy (p < 0.001). Compared to DM-VABB, DBT-VABB used fewer exposures (p < 0.001) and more commonly targeted AD, asymmetries, or masses (p < 0.001). Malignancy rates were similar between procedures: prone DM-VABB 22.4%, prone DBT-VABB 21.9%, upright DM-VABB 22.8%, and upright DBT-VABB 17.2% (p-values > 0.19). One hundred forty of the 1133 patients underwent 145 biopsies for ultrasound-occult AD (143 DBT-VABB and 2 DM-VABB). Biopsy yielded 27 malignancies and 47 high-risk lesions (74 of 145, 51%). Malignancy rate was 20.7% after surgical upgrade of one benign-discordant and two high-risk lesions. Conclusions: All biopsy procedure types were extremely successful. The 20.7% malignancy rate for ultrasound-occult AD confirms a management recommendation for tissue diagnosis. Upright biopsy was faster than prone biopsy, and DBT-VABB used fewer exposures than DM-VABB. Clinical relevance: Our results highlight important differences between prone DM-VABB, prone DBT-VABB, upright DM-VABB, and upright DBT-VABB. Moreover, the high likelihood of malignancy for ultrasound-occult AD will provide confidence in recommending tissue diagnosis in lieu of observation or clinical follow-up. Key Points: • Upright and prone stereotactic and tomosynthesis-guided breast biopsies were safe and effective in the community-practice setting. • The malignancy rate for ultrasound-occult architectural distortion of 20.7% confirms the management recommendation for biopsy. • Upright procedures were faster than prone procedures, and tomosynthesis-guided biopsy used fewer exposures than stereotactic biopsy.
KW - Breast neoplasms
KW - Image-guided biopsy
KW - Imaging, three-dimensional
KW - Mammography
KW - Stereotaxic techniques
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85152524425&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85152524425&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00330-023-09581-5
DO - 10.1007/s00330-023-09581-5
M3 - Article
C2 - 37042980
AN - SCOPUS:85152524425
SN - 0938-7994
VL - 33
SP - 6189
EP - 6203
JO - European Radiology
JF - European Radiology
IS - 9
ER -