Vacuum-assisted excision biopsy for definitive diagnosis of breast lesions of uncertain malignant potential (B3 lesions) on core biopsy - A single centre Western Australian experience.

INTRODUCTION: In Australia, the usual approach to breast lesions where core biopsy returns an uncertain result ("B3" breast lesion) is to perform surgical diagnostic open biopsy (DOB). This is associated with patient time off work, costs of hospital admission, risks of general anaesthesia and surgical complications. The majority of B3 lesions return benign results following surgery. Vacuum assisted excision biopsy (VAEB) is a less invasive, lower cost alternative, and is standard of care for selected B3 lesions in the United Kingdom. Similar use of VAEB in Australia, could save many women unnecessary surgery. The aim of this study was to document our experience during the introduction of VAEB as an alternative to DOB for diagnosis of selected B3 lesions. METHODS: The multidisciplinary team developed an agreed VAEB pathway for selected B3 lesions. Technically accessible papillary lesions, mucocele-like lesions and radial scars without atypia measuring ≤ 15mm were selected. RESULTS: Over a 7 month period, 18 women with 20 B3 lesions were offered VAEB. 16 women (18 lesions) chose VAEB over DOB. Papillomas were the commonest lesion type. All lesions were successfully sampled: 17/18 were benign. One lesion (6%) was upgraded to malignancy (ductal carcinoma in situ on VAEB, invasive ductal carcinoma at surgery). No major complications occurred. Patient satisfaction was high: 15/16 respondents would again choose VAEB over surgery. CONCLUSION: VAEB is a patient-preferred, safe, well-tolerated, lower-cost alternative to DOB for definitive diagnosis of selected B3 breast lesions.

Pre-operative localization of impalpable breast lesions using iodine 125 seeds: Placement accuracy and multidisciplinary challenges.

INTRODUCTION: The number of impalpable breast lesions requiring pre-operative lesion localization (PLL) continues to increase. The use of Radio-guided Occult Lesion Localization with Iodine 125 Seeds (ROLLIS) offers multiple benefits for the multidisciplinary team (MDT), but is not without challenges. AIMS: The aims of this audit were to review our multidisciplinary team's experience following introduction of ROLLIS as standard of care for PLL, identify challenges and evaluate seed placement accuracy (SPA). RESULTS/OUTCOMES: Over a nineteen month period, 327 seeds were inserted: 96% of single seed localizations were within 10 mm, 91% within 5 mm and 42% within or in contact with the lesion (or marker clip surrogate) on post-insertion two view mammography. Each component of the MDT reported on benefits of the ROLLIS program and challenges faced. Examples included: an undetectable seed in the operating room, a seed damaged in pathology during specimen processing, suboptimal seed position requiring hook-wire localization (HWL) and delayed seed removal in a patient who initially refused to return for surgery. CONCLUSION: ROLLIS results in high seed placement accuracy. Despite clear advantages, use of ROLLIS presents some multidisciplinary challenges. Robust patient information, training of new staff and adherence to strict policies and protocols are required to ensure safe delivery of a ROLLIS program.

Are breast biopsy markers underused?

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate current use of breast biopsy markers (BBM) amongst Australian and New Zealand radiologists. METHODS: Radiologists attending a national breast conference were invited to complete an online survey addressing demographics, BBM use following ultrasound, stereotactic, tomosynthesis and MRI-guided biopsy, frequency of early BBM displacement, preoperative lesion localisation (PLL) and axillary BBM use. RESULTS: Overall response rate was 52% (60/115). The majority (n = 45) 75% practiced in Australia. 98% had BBMs available in their practice, 40% reported BBM costs weren't covered by insurance. 27% would use BBMs more often if they were, with some utilising smaller gauge devices for lesion sampling to minimise need for BBM use and patient out-of-pocket costs. Ultrasound-guided procedures were associated with lower rates of clinically significant BBM displacement (P = 0.001). Considering PLL, 44% were able to perform US-guided PLL in <25% of cases. Poor sonographic visibility was the commonest reason why this wasn't possible. In the axilla, BBMs were mainly used to mark positive nodes in pre-neoadjuvant chemotherapy patients. CONCLUSION: This survey is the first to provide data on BBM use amongst a sample of predominantly Australian and New Zealand radiologists, and provides compelling evidence of significantly lower incidence of BBM displacement with US-guided procedures. Our results suggest some radiologists may hesitate to use BBMs due to cost, and this can influence their choice of biopsy technique. Provision of a Medicare item Number for BBMs may lead to increased adoption of best practice guidelines for preoperative diagnosis of breast lesions.