Pseudocalcifications: Radiologic-Pathologic Correlation of Postsurgical Gauze Artifacts.

Artifacts and foreign bodies can mimic microcalcifications. We report a series of 17 postsurgical women in whom mammograms showed fine linear radiodensities at the surgical bed. Vacuum-assisted biopsy histopathology of one of the lesions showed foreign bodies of different sizes with macrophage reaction. After discussion with the surgeons, we ascertained that a particular type of gauze was used that had fragmented, and we reproduced the mammographic appearance in a chicken breast. Furthermore, we showed the same pathology was reproduced in mice implanted with the gauze threads. It is important to be aware of this entity to avoid unnecessary examinations and even biopsy. The presence of foreign body linear gauze fragments at the surgical site can pose challenges in the mammographic follow-up of these patients.

Ultrasound as the Primary Screening Test for Breast Cancer: Analysis From ACRIN 6666.

BACKGROUND: Mammography is not widely available in all countries, and breast cancer incidence is increasing. We considered performance characteristics using ultrasound (US) instead of mammography to screen for breast cancer. METHODS: Two thousand eight hundred nine participants were enrolled at 20 sites in the United States, Canada, and Argentina in American College of Radiology Imaging 6666. Two thousand six hundred sixty-two participants completed three annual screens (7473 examinations) with US and film-screen (n = 4351) or digital (n = 3122) mammography and had biopsy or 12-month follow-up. Cancer detection, recall, and positive predictive values were determined. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: One hundred ten women had 111 breast cancer events: 89 (80.2%) invasive cancers, median size 12 mm. The number of US screens to detect one cancer was 129 (95% bootstrap confidence interval [CI] = 110 to 156), and for mammography 127 (95% CI = 109 to 152). Cancer detection was comparable for each of US and mammography at 58 of 111 (52.3%) vs 59 of 111 (53.2%, P = .90), with US-detected cancers more likely invasive (53/58, 91.4%, median size 12 mm, range = 2-40 mm), vs mammography at 41 of 59 (69.5%, median size 13 mm, range = 1-55 mm, P < .001). Invasive cancers detected by US were more frequently node-negative, 34 of 53 (64.2%) vs 18 of 41 (43.9%) by mammography (P = .003). For 4814 incidence screens (years 2 and 3), US had higher recall and biopsy rates and lower PPV of biopsy (PPV3) than mammography: The recall rate was 10.7% (n = 515) vs 9.4% (n = 453, P = .03), the biopsy rate was 5.5% (n = 266) vs 2.0% (n = 97, P < .001), and PPV3 was 11.7% (31/266) vs 38.1% (37/97, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Cancer detection rate with US is comparable with mammography, with a greater proportion of invasive and node-negative cancers among US detections. False positives are more common with US screening.

Imaginología mamaria en el hombre / Breast Imaging in men

Introducción: La patología mamaria masculina es poco frecuente y no muy conocida. En este trabajo hicimos una revisión retrospectiva de los estudios imaginológicos y de las biopsias histológicas realizadas en nuestra institución. Materiales y métodos: Entre enero del 2007 y septiembre del 2012 se revieron 162 pacientes que se realizaron mamografías, ecografías o mamografías más ecografía, categorizadas según BI-RADS. Además, entre 1992 y 2012 se realizaron 31 biopsias histológicas percutáneas bajo guía imaginológica en nuestra institución, las que también analizamos. Resultados: De los estudios realizados, se categorizaron como BI-RADS 1: 19 (12%); BIRADS 2:131 (81%); BI-RADS 3: 6 (4%); y BI-RADS 4 y 5: 6 (3%). Ciento veintiocho (79%) correspondieron a ginecomastia y 5 (3%) a carcinomas. Valor pronóstico positivo (VPP) 83% de los estudios por imágenes. De las biopsias histológicasrealizadas, 26 fueron benignas (84%) y 5 fueron malignas (16%). Conclusiones: La patología benigna es más frecuente que la maligna en el hombre, correspondiendo la amplia mayoría a ginecomastia. Los métodos por imágenes pueden categorizar certeramente patología benigna y maligna en la mayoría de los casos. Las biopsias por punción son seguras y confiables. Sería ideal incrementar el porcentaje de biopsias por lesiones maligna.(AU)

Imaginología mamaria en el hombre / Breast Imaging in men

Introducción: La patología mamaria masculina es poco frecuente y no muy conocida. En este trabajo hicimos una revisión retrospectiva de los estudios imaginológicos y de las biopsias histológicas realizadas en nuestra institución. Materiales y métodos: Entre enero del 2007 y septiembre del 2012 se revieron 162 pacientes que se realizaron mamografías, ecografías o mamografías más ecografía, categorizadas según BI-RADS. Además, entre 1992 y 2012 se realizaron 31 biopsias histológicas percutáneas bajo guía imaginológica en nuestra institución, las que también analizamos. Resultados: De los estudios realizados, se categorizaron como BI-RADS 1: 19 (12%); BIRADS 2:131 (81%); BI-RADS 3: 6 (4%); y BI-RADS 4 y 5: 6 (3%). Ciento veintiocho (79%) correspondieron a ginecomastia y 5 (3%) a carcinomas. Valor pronóstico positivo (VPP) 83% de los estudios por imágenes. De las biopsias histológicasrealizadas, 26 fueron benignas (84%) y 5 fueron malignas (16%). Conclusiones: La patología benigna es más frecuente que la maligna en el hombre, correspondiendo la amplia mayoría a ginecomastia. Los métodos por imágenes pueden categorizar certeramente patología benigna y maligna en la mayoría de los casos. Las biopsias por punción son seguras y confiables. Sería ideal incrementar el porcentaje de biopsias por lesiones maligna.

Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk.

CONTEXT: Annual ultrasound screening may detect small, node-negative breast cancers that are not seen on mammography. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may reveal additional breast cancers missed by both mammography and ultrasound screening. OBJECTIVE: To determine supplemental cancer detection yield of ultrasound and MRI in women at elevated risk for breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From April 2004-February 2006, 2809 women at 21 sites with elevated cancer risk and dense breasts consented to 3 annual independent screens with mammography and ultrasound in randomized order. After 3 rounds of both screenings, 612 of 703 women who chose to undergo an MRI had complete data. The reference standard was defined as a combination of pathology (biopsy results that showed in situ or infiltrating ductal carcinoma or infiltrating lobular carcinoma in the breast or axillary lymph nodes) and 12-month follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cancer detection rate (yield), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV3) of biopsies performed and interval cancer rate. RESULTS: A total of 2662 women underwent 7473 mammogram and ultrasound screenings, 110 of whom had 111 breast cancer events: 33 detected by mammography only, 32 by ultrasound only, 26 by both, and 9 by MRI after mammography plus ultrasound; 11 were not detected by any imaging screen. Among 4814 incidence screens in the second and third years combined, 75 women were diagnosed with cancer. Supplemental incidence-screening ultrasound identified 3.7 cancers per 1000 screens (95% CI, 2.1-5.8; P < .001). Sensitivity for mammography plus ultrasound was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.65-0.85); specificity, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.83-0.85); and PPV3, 0.16 (95% CI, 0.12-0.21). For mammography alone, sensitivity was 0.52 (95% CI, 0.40-0.64); specificity, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.90-0.92); and PPV3, 0.38 (95% CI, 0.28-0.49; P < .001 all comparisons). Of the MRI participants, 16 women (2.6%) had breast cancer diagnosed. The supplemental yield of MRI was 14.7 per 1000 (95% CI, 3.5-25.9; P = .004). Sensitivity for MRI and mammography plus ultrasound was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.79-1.00); specificity, 0.65 (95% CI, 0.61-0.69); and PPV3, 0.19 (95% CI, 0.11-0.29). For mammography and ultrasound, sensitivity was 0.44 (95% CI, 0.20-0.70, P = .004); specificity 0.84 (95% CI, 0.81-0.87; P < .001); and PPV3, 0.18 (95% CI, 0.08 to 0.34; P = .98). The number of screens needed to detect 1 cancer was 127 (95% CI, 99-167) for mammography; 234 (95% CI, 173-345) for supplemental ultrasound; and 68 (95% CI, 39-286) for MRI after negative mammography and ultrasound results. CONCLUSION: The addition of screening ultrasound or MRI to mammography in women at increased risk of breast cancer resulted in not only a higher cancer detection yield but also an increase in false-positive findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00072501.

Reasons women at elevated risk of breast cancer refuse breast MR imaging screening: ACRIN 6666.

PURPOSE: To determine reasons for nonparticipation in a trial of supplemental screening with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging after mammography and ultrasonography (US). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Women(n = 2809) at elevated risk of breast cancer were enrolled in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6666 US Screening Protocol at 21 institutions. Fourteen institutions met technical and experience requirements for this institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant substudy of supplemental screening with MR imaging. Those women who had completed 0-, 12-, and 24-month screenings with mammography combined with US were considered for a single contrast material-enhanced MR examination within 8 weeks after completing the 24-month mammography-US screening. A total of 1593 women had complete MR substudy registration data: 378 of them were ineligible for the study, and 1215 had analyzable data. Reasons for nonparticipation were determined. Demographic data were compared between study participants and nonparticipants. RESULTS: Of 1215 women with analyzable data, 703 (57.9%), with a mean age of 54.8 years, were enrolled in the MR substudy and 512 (42.1%) declined participation. Women with a 25% or greater lifetime risk of breast cancer were more likely to participate (odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval: 1.10, 2.12). Of 512 nonparticipants, 130 (25.4%) refused owing to claustrophobia; 93 (18.2%), owing to time constraints; 62 (12.1%), owing to financial concerns; 47 (9.2%), because their physician would not provide a referral and/or did not believe MR imaging was indicated; 40 (7.8%), because they were not interested; 39 (7.6%), because they were medically intolerant to MR imaging; 29 (5.7%), because they did not want to undergo intravenous injection; 27 (5.3%), owing to additional biopsy or other procedures that might be required subsequently; 21 (4.1%), owing to MR imaging scheduling constraints; 11 (2.2%), because of the travel required; seven (1.4%), owing to gadolinium-related risks or allergies; and six (1.2%), for unknown reasons. CONCLUSION: Of 1215 women with elevated breast cancer risk who could, according to protocol guidelines, undergo breast MR imaging, only 57.9% agreed to participate.

Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer.

CONTEXT: Screening ultrasound may depict small, node-negative breast cancers not seen on mammography. OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic yield, defined as the proportion of women with positive screen test results and positive reference standard, and performance of screening with ultrasound plus mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From April 2004 to February 2006, 2809 women, with at least heterogeneously dense breast tissue in at least 1 quadrant, were recruited from 21 sites to undergo mammographic and physician-performed ultrasonographic examinations in randomized order by a radiologist masked to the other examination results. Reference standard was defined as a combination of pathology and 12-month follow-up and was available for 2637 (96.8%) of the 2725 eligible participants. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Diagnostic yield, sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy (assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) of combined mammography plus ultrasound vs mammography alone and the positive predictive value of biopsy recommendations for mammography plus ultrasound vs mammography alone. RESULTS: Forty participants (41 breasts) were diagnosed with cancer: 8 suspicious on both ultrasound and mammography, 12 on ultrasound alone, 12 on mammography alone, and 8 participants (9 breasts) on neither. The diagnostic yield for mammography was 7.6 per 1000 women screened (20 of 2637) and increased to 11.8 per 1000 (31 of 2637) for combined mammography plus ultrasound; the supplemental yield was 4.2 per 1000 women screened (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-7.2 per 1000; P = .003 that supplemental yield is 0). The diagnostic accuracy for mammography was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.67-0.87) and increased to 0.91 (95% CI, 0.84-0.96) for mammography plus ultrasound (P = .003 that difference is 0). Of 12 supplemental cancers detected by ultrasound alone, 11 (92%) were invasive with a median size of 10 mm (range, 5-40 mm; mean [SE], 12.6 [3.0] mm) and 8 of the 9 lesions (89%) reported had negative nodes. The positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation after full diagnostic workup was 19 of 84 for mammography (22.6%; 95% CI, 14.2%-33%), 21 of 235 for ultrasound (8.9%, 95% CI, 5.6%-13.3%), and 31 of 276 for combined mammography plus ultrasound (11.2%; 95% CI. 7.8%-15.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Adding a single screening ultrasound to mammography will yield an additional 1.1 to 7.2 cancers per 1000 high-risk women, but it will also substantially increase the number of false positives. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00072501.

Relevamiento nacional. Conocimiento, actitudes y percepción de las mujeres sobre salud mamaria / National Surrey. Women’s knowledge, attitudes and perception on breast health

Con el objetivo de investigar las actitudes, percepciones y conocimientos de las mujeres respecto de su salud mamaria, se realizó una encuesta mediante entrevistas domiciliarias, probabilidad hasta la etapa de selección del individuo, con un margen de error estimado en 2,8 por ciento para un nivel de confianza del 95 por ciento; a 1.125 mujeres de 40 a 70 años de edad, de todos los niveles socioeconómicos, representativas de la población general, en diferentes localidades del territorio nacional, durante el mes de agosto de 2007. La investigación fue realizada por inquietud de la Subcomisión Comunicación con la Comunidad, para la Sociedad Argentina de Mastología, por Ipsos Mora y Araujo y financiada por el Laboratorio Roche. Presentamos aquí un resumen con las principales conclusiones de la investigación.

Hiperplasia ductal atipica mamaria en puncion biopsia histologica / Atypical ductal hyperplasia at needle core breast biopsies. Morphological aspects and their correlation with the surgical biopsy

Antecedentes: El diagnostico de hiperplasia ductal atipica (HDA) por puncion histologica (PBH) representa entre el 1 por ciento al 9 por ciento, con frecuencias de subestimacion para pistola (CORE) y sistema de vacio direccional (BSVD) del 0 al 88 por ciento. El objetivo de nuestro trabajo es establecer las frecuencias de subestimacion con los distintos tipos de aguja y evaluar variables histologicas que puedan establecer un subrupo que no necesite una biopsia quirurgica luego de un diagnostico de HDA por PBH. Metodos: entre 1992 y julio 2001, sobre 4.919 PBH [con agujas de 14 gauge y pistola (CORE) o con sistema de vacio direccional (BSVD) con aguja de 11 gauge] se diagnosticaorn 56 HDA (1,14 por ciento). De estas se establecio la correlacion con la biopsia quirurgica (BQ) posterior en 50 casos (89 por ciento). Se analizo ademas de la frecuencia de subestimacion, el patron histologico y grado de la HDA (leve, moderada y severa), la extension de la lesion segun el numero de focos comprometidos, presencia de microcalcificaciones en la HDA y lesiones asociadas. Resultados: la subestimacion diagnostica fue del 45,4 por ciento para la PBH con CORE y del 7,1 por ciento con BSVD. El 100 por ciento de las HDA clasificadas como grado 1 (leve) se correlaciono con hallazgos benignos en las BQ. El patron histologico solido hallado en 4 casos de PBH, presento carcinomas no invasores y carcinomas invasores en la BQ. La mayor o menor cantidad de focos de HDA en las PBH no demostro tener relacion con los hallazgos de la BQ. Conclusiones: el metodo BSVD, por la cantidad de muestras y el tamaño de las mismas, disminuye significativamente la subestimacion diagnostica. Aquellas HDA categorizadas como leve (grado 1), relacionadas con otros parametros como ser el metodo de PBH utilizado (BSVD) y la extraccion total de la lesion, podrian establecer un subgrupo en el que no fuera necesaria la BQ posterior. A pesar del bajo numero de casos, el patron de crecimiento solido puede ser indicador de subestimacion (AU)

Hiperplasia ductal atipica mamaria en puncion biopsia histologica / Atypical ductal hyperplasia at needle core breast biopsies. Morphological aspects and their correlation with the surgical biopsy

Antecedentes: El diagnostico de hiperplasia ductal atipica (HDA) por puncion histologica (PBH) representa entre el 1 por ciento al 9 por ciento, con frecuencias de subestimacion para pistola (CORE) y sistema de vacio direccional (BSVD) del 0 al 88 por ciento. El objetivo de nuestro trabajo es establecer las frecuencias de subestimacion con los distintos tipos de aguja y evaluar variables histologicas que puedan establecer un subrupo que no necesite una biopsia quirurgica luego de un diagnostico de HDA por PBH. Metodos: entre 1992 y julio 2001, sobre 4.919 PBH [con agujas de 14 gauge y pistola (CORE) o con sistema de vacio direccional (BSVD) con aguja de 11 gauge] se diagnosticaorn 56 HDA (1,14 por ciento). De estas se establecio la correlacion con la biopsia quirurgica (BQ) posterior en 50 casos (89 por ciento). Se analizo ademas de la frecuencia de subestimacion, el patron histologico y grado de la HDA (leve, moderada y severa), la extension de la lesion segun el numero de focos comprometidos, presencia de microcalcificaciones en la HDA y lesiones asociadas. Resultados: la subestimacion diagnostica fue del 45,4 por ciento para la PBH con CORE y del 7,1 por ciento con BSVD. El 100 por ciento de las HDA clasificadas como grado 1 (leve) se correlaciono con hallazgos benignos en las BQ. El patron histologico solido hallado en 4 casos de PBH, presento carcinomas no invasores y carcinomas invasores en la BQ. La mayor o menor cantidad de focos de HDA en las PBH no demostro tener relacion con los hallazgos de la BQ. Conclusiones: el metodo BSVD, por la cantidad de muestras y el tamaño de las mismas, disminuye significativamente la subestimacion diagnostica. Aquellas HDA categorizadas como leve (grado 1), relacionadas con otros parametros como ser el metodo de PBH utilizado (BSVD) y la extraccion total de la lesion, podrian establecer un subgrupo en el que no fuera necesaria la BQ posterior. A pesar del bajo numero de casos, el patron de crecimiento solido puede ser indicador de subestimacion

Percutaneous core needle biopsy of radial scars of the breast: when is excision necessary?

OBJECTIVE: . This study was conducted to evaluate the outcome of cases of radial scar diagnosed by percutaneous core needle biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 198 nonpalpable lesions diagnosed with radial scars found at core needle biopsy, 157 lesions constituting the study group had undergone surgical excision (n = 102) or mammographic surveillance after biopsy for at least 24 months (median, 38 months; n = 55). Mammographic lesion type, lesion size, biopsy guidance method, biopsy device, number of specimens per lesion, and presence of atypical hyperplasia at percutaneous biopsy were retrospectively analyzed. Results were compared with histologic findings at surgery or mammographic findings during surveillance. RESULTS: . Carcinoma was found at excision in 28% (8/29) of lesions with associated atypical hyperplasia at percutaneous biopsy and 4% (5/128) of lesions without associated atypia (p < 0.0001). In the latter group, carcinoma was found at excision in 3% (2/60) of masses, 8% (3/40) of architectural distortions, and 0% (0/28) of microcalcification lesions. Malignancy was missed in 9% (5/58) of lesions biopsied with a spring-loaded device and in 0% (0/70) of lesions biopsied with a directional vacuum-assisted device (p = 0.01); and in 8% (5/60) of lesions sampled with less than 12 specimens per lesion and 0% (0/68) sampled with 12 or more specimens (p = 0.015). Lesion type, maximal lesion diameter, and type of imaging guidance (stereotactic or sonographic) were not significant factors in determining the presence of malignancy. CONCLUSION: . Diagnosis of radial scar based on core needle biopsy is likely to be reliable when there is no associated atypical hyperplasia at percutaneous biopsy, when the biopsy includes at least 12 specimens, and when mammographic findings are reconciled with histologic findings. When the lesion diagnosed by core needle biopsy as radial scar does not meet these criteria, excisional biopsy is indicated.

Biopsias histologicas percutaneas guiadas por imagenes subestimacion de hiperplasia ductal atipica / Percutaneous histological biopsies. Underestimation of atypical ductal hyperplasia

Objetivos: Cuantificar la subestimacion de hiperplasias ductales atipicas (HDA) en las biopsias histologicas percutaneas y evaluar si es necesario realizar biopsias quirurgicas en todos los casos. Materiales y metodos: se evaluaron 50 lesiones diagnosticadas como HDA en biopsias histologicas percutaneas con pistola de resorte (CORE) con agujas de 14 gauge y sistema de vacio direccional (BSVD) con agujas de 11 gauge, con su posterior correlacion quirurgica. Los diagnosticos histologicos quirurgicos de carcinoma intraductal o invasor fueron considerados "subestimaciones". Los resultados fueron analizados con la prueba U de Mann Whitney y con el test de X2. Se considero diferencia significativa p<0,05. Resultados: Hubo mayor subestimacion: cuando se tomaron hasta 10 muestas que con mas de 10 muestras (53,8 por ciento vs 13,9 por ciento; p=0,004); con CORE que con BSVD (45,4 por ciento vs 7,1 por ciento; p=0,001); y cuando persiste lesion radiologica, que si la lesion radiologica fue totalmente resecada (RTLR) (36,4 por ciento vs 0 porciento; p=0,003). CORE produjo mayores subestimaciones que BSVD cuando se estudiaron microcalcificaciones (53,8 por ciento vs 8 por ciento; p=0,003), se tomaron mas de 10 muestras (44, 4 vs 3,7 por ciento; p= 0,009) y en lesiones de hasta 10mm (52,9 vs 0 por ciento; p=0,0006). La RTLR fue mas frecuente con BSVD que con CORE (57,1 vs 4,5 por ciento; p=0,0001). Conclusion: La subestimacion de HDA en biopsias histologicas percutaneas fue menor, cuantitativa y cualitativamente, con BSVD que con CORE en todas las variables con diferencia significativa. La reseccion de toda la lesion radiologica fue mas frecuente con BSVD. No se encontro carcinoma en la cirugia cuando se extrajo la totalidad de la lesion radiologica en la biopsia percutanea (AU)

Biopsias histologicas percutaneas guiadas por imagenes subestimacion de hiperplasia ductal atipica / Percutaneous histological biopsies. Underestimation of atypical ductal hyperplasia

Objetivos: Cuantificar la subestimacion de hiperplasias ductales atipicas (HDA) en las biopsias histologicas percutaneas y evaluar si es necesario realizar biopsias quirurgicas en todos los casos. Materiales y metodos: se evaluaron 50 lesiones diagnosticadas como HDA en biopsias histologicas percutaneas con pistola de resorte (CORE) con agujas de 14 gauge y sistema de vacio direccional (BSVD) con agujas de 11 gauge, con su posterior correlacion quirurgica. Los diagnosticos histologicos quirurgicos de carcinoma intraductal o invasor fueron considerados "subestimaciones". Los resultados fueron analizados con la prueba U de Mann Whitney y con el test de X2. Se considero diferencia significativa p<0,05. Resultados: Hubo mayor subestimacion: cuando se tomaron hasta 10 muestas que con mas de 10 muestras (53,8 por ciento vs 13,9 por ciento; p=0,004); con CORE que con BSVD (45,4 por ciento vs 7,1 por ciento; p=0,001); y cuando persiste lesion radiologica, que si la lesion radiologica fue totalmente resecada (RTLR) (36,4 por ciento vs 0 porciento; p=0,003). CORE produjo mayores subestimaciones que BSVD cuando se estudiaron microcalcificaciones (53,8 por ciento vs 8 por ciento; p=0,003), se tomaron mas de 10 muestras (44, 4 vs 3,7 por ciento; p= 0,009) y en lesiones de hasta 10mm (52,9 vs 0 por ciento; p=0,0006). La RTLR fue mas frecuente con BSVD que con CORE (57,1 vs 4,5 por ciento; p=0,0001). Conclusion: La subestimacion de HDA en biopsias histologicas percutaneas fue menor, cuantitativa y cualitativamente, con BSVD que con CORE en todas las variables con diferencia significativa. La reseccion de toda la lesion radiologica fue mas frecuente con BSVD. No se encontro carcinoma en la cirugia cuando se extrajo la totalidad de la lesion radiologica en la biopsia percutanea