Biopsy needle technique and the accuracy of diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia for mammographic abnormalities.

The evaluation of mammographic abnormalities has become a substantial effort for surgeons and radiologists. The vacuum-assisted core biopsy (VACB) has been touted as a more accurate tool for the evaluation of mammographic lesions. Diagnosis of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) from a percutaneous needle biopsy of the breast is associated with a significant risk of missing a significant breast lesion. We compared 2 methods of sampling with stereotactic-guided breast biopsy, 14-gauge automated gun core biopsy (AGCB) and VACB, on the accuracy of diagnosis of ADH at a single institution. All cases of ADH, without associated malignancy, found via image-guided breast biopsy of nonpalpable lesions between March 1996 and April 2002 were evaluated. VACB biopsy needles were utilized between July 1998 to April 2002 (686 patients) and 14-gauge AGCB from March 1996 to June 1998 (350 patients). The results of these biopsies were reviewed and compared to surgical biopsy and pathological records. ADH alone was found in 53 cases (5.1% of biopsies; mean age 57.9 years). Of these, 39 patients with ADH subsequently underwent wire-localized excisional biopsy. The other 14 patients were observed. VACB biopsy understaged 7 of 29 (24%) patients with ADH (all of which were DCIS), AGCB understaged 4 of 10 cases (40%) with one being invasive. Of the patients in the core biopsy group who were initially followed, 2 developed significant lesions within 3 years of follow-up in the same quadrant of the breast. If these cases are added to the AGCB group, then 50 per cent were understaged and significantly more invasive lesions were understaged than with VACB (17% vs. 0%; P = 0.018). The VACB resulted in less understaging of ADH than AGCB. However, there remains a significant risk of missing DCIS in this setting even with the VACB. Furthermore, the risk of understaging an invasive lesion is significantly lower in this setting with a VACB than an AGCB. Although the risk of understaging ADH is lower with the VACB, we continue to recommend excisional biopsy in a good-risk patient when a diagnosis of ADH is rendered via VACB biopsy.

Method for combined FDG-PET and radiographic imaging of primary breast cancers.

The purpose of the study was to demonstrate the feasibility of a hybrid functional/anatomic breast imaging platform with biopsy capability for facilitating lesion detection and diagnosis. This platform consists of an investigative dedicated positron emission mammography (PEM) device mounted on a stereotactic X-ray mammography system, permitting sequential acquisition of mammographic and emission images during a single breast compression. There is automatic coregistration of images from both modalities, and these results can be successfully correlated with histopathologic findings. The potential utility of functional images correlated to anatomic images would include noninvasively detecting clinically and radiographically occult cancers, assessing response to therapy, discriminating between benign and malignant breast masses, and ultimately reducing the number of invasive and costly surgical interventions. A spot-digital mammogram and subsequent PEM image, collected over a 4-minute period, were obtained in a single patient with the breast in compression after intravenous injection of (F-18)-2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose (FDG) at the time of stereotactic biopsy. The authors conclude that FDG-based lesion localization information may be combined with the lesion X-ray attenuation characteristics using this common imaging platform.

Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography in patients with dense breasts who underwent problem-solving mammography: effects of image processing and lesion type.

PURPOSE: To determine effects of lesion type (calcification vs mass) and image processing on radiologist's performance for area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity for detection of masses and calcifications with digital mammography in women with mammographically dense breasts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 201 women who underwent digital mammography at seven U.S. and Canadian medical centers. Three image-processing algorithms were applied to the digital images, which were acquired with Fischer, General Electric, and Lorad digital mammography units. Eighteen readers participated in the reader study (six readers per algorithm). Baseline values for reader performance with screen-film mammograms were obtained through the additional interpretation of 179 screen-film mammograms. A repeated-measures analysis of covariance allowing unequal slopes was used in each of the nine analyses (AUC, sensitivity, and specificity for each of three machines). Bonferroni correction was used. RESULTS: Although lesion type did not affect the AUC or sensitivity for Fischer digital images, it did affect specificity (P =.0004). For the General Electric digital images, AUC, sensitivity, and specificity were not affected by lesion type. For Lorad digital images, the results strongly suggested that lesion type affected AUC and sensitivity (P <.0001). None of the three image-processing methods tested affected the AUC, sensitivity, or specificity for the Fischer, General Electric, or Lorad digital images. CONCLUSION: Findings in this study indicate that radiologist's interpretation accuracy in interpreting digital mammograms depends on lesion type. Interpretation accuracy was not influenced by the image-processing method.