AJR InPractice
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Liberman, L.
Right arrow Articles by Dershaw, D. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Liberman, L.
Right arrow Articles by Dershaw, D. D.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
AJR 2001; 177:165-172
© American Roentgen Ray Society


Calcifications Highly Suggestive of Malignancy

Comparison of Breast Biopsy Methods

Laura Liberman1, Christina A. Gougoutas1, Maureen F. Zakowski2, Linda R. LaTrenta1, Andrea F. Abramson1, Elizabeth A. Morris1 and D. David Dershaw1

1 Breast Imaging Section, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave., New York, NY 10021.
2 Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10021.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare the usefulness of, and cost of diagnosing with, different breast biopsy methods for women with calcifications highly suggestive of malignancy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. One hundred thirty-nine women with calcifications highly suggestive of malignancy underwent diagnostic biopsy. Of these, 89 women had stereotactic biopsy with a 14-gauge automated needle (n = 25), 14-gauge vacuum-assisted probe (n = 17), or 11-gauge vacuum-assisted probe (n = 47); and 50 women had diagnostic surgical biopsy. Medical records were reviewed. Cost savings for stereotactic biopsy were calculated using Medicare data.

RESULTS. The median number of operations was one for women who had stereotactic biopsy versus two for women who had diagnostic surgical biopsy. The likelihood of undergoing a single operation was significantly greater for women who had stereotactic rather than surgical biopsy, among all women (61/89 [68.5%] vs. 19/50 [38.0%], p < 0.001) and among women treated for breast cancer (55/77 [71.4%] vs. 6/37 [16.2%], p = 0.0000001). Stereotactic 11-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy, as compared with 14-gauge automated core or 14-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy, was significantly more likely to spare a surgical procedure (36/47 [76.6%] vs. 16/42 [38.1%], p = 0.0005). Stereotactic 11-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy resulted in the greatest cost reduction, yielding savings of $315 per case compared with diagnostic surgical biopsy; for women with solitary lesions, stereotactic 11-gauge biopsy decreased the cost of diagnosis by 22.2% ($334/$1502).

CONCLUSION. For women with calcifications highly suggestive of malignancy, the use of stereotactic rather than surgical biopsy decreases the number of operations. Stereotactic 11-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy, as compared with 14-gauge automated core or 14-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy, is significantly more likely to spare a surgical procedure and has the highest cost savings.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
RadioGraphicsHome page
L. E. Esserman, M. A. Cura, and D. DaCosta
Recognizing Pitfalls in Early and Late Migration of Clip Markers after Imaging-guided Directional Vacuum-assisted Biopsy
RadioGraphics, January 1, 2004; 24(1): 147 - 156.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2001 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.