Display options
Cite
Łukasiewicz E, Ziemiecka A, Jakubowski W, et al. Fine-needle versus core-needle biopsy - which one to choose in preoperative assessment of focal lesions in the breasts? Literature review. J Ultrason. 2017;17(71):267-274doi: 10.15557/JoU.2017.0039.
Łukasiewicz, E., Ziemiecka, A., Jakubowski, W., Vojinovic, J., Bogucevska, M., & Dobruch-Sobczak, K. (2017). Fine-needle versus core-needle biopsy - which one to choose in preoperative assessment of focal lesions in the breasts? Literature review. Journal of ultrasonography, 17(71), 267-274. https://doi.org/10.15557/JoU.2017.0039
Łukasiewicz, Ewa, et al. "Fine-needle versus core-needle biopsy - which one to choose in preoperative assessment of focal lesions in the breasts? Literature review." Journal of ultrasonography vol. 17,71 (2017): 267-274. doi: https://doi.org/10.15557/JoU.2017.0039
Łukasiewicz E, Ziemiecka A, Jakubowski W, Vojinovic J, Bogucevska M, Dobruch-Sobczak K. Fine-needle versus core-needle biopsy - which one to choose in preoperative assessment of focal lesions in the breasts? Literature review. J Ultrason. 2017 Dec;17(71):267-274. doi: 10.15557/JoU.2017.0039. Epub 2017 Dec 29. PMID: 29375902; PMCID: PMC5769667.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Ultrason. 2017 Dec;17(71):267-274. doi: 10.15557/JoU.2017.0039. Epub 2017 Dec 29.

Fine-needle versus core-needle biopsy - which one to choose in preoperative assessment of focal lesions in the breasts? Literature review.

Journal of ultrasonography

Ewa Łukasiewicz, Agnieszka Ziemiecka, Wiesław Jakubowski, Jelena Vojinovic, Magdalena Bogucevska, Katarzyna Dobruch-Sobczak

Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Imaging, Mazovia Brodnowski Hospital, Warsaw, Poland.
  2. Department of Ultrasonography and Mammography, Mazovia Brodnowski Hospital, Warsaw, Poland.
  3. Department of Pediatric Rheumatology, Clinical Center, Faculty of Medicine, University of Nis, Serbia.
  4. Department of Radiology, City General Hospital "8 September", Skopje, Macedonia.
  5. Second Department of Radiology, Center of Oncology - Institute, Warsaw, Poland.

PMID: 29375902 PMCID: PMC5769667 DOI: 10.15557/JoU.2017.0039

Abstract

AIM: The aim of the study was to review two techniques that can be used to verify focal lesions in the breasts: fine-needle aspiration biopsy and core-needle biopsy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty-five articles (original papers and reviews), half of them published within the past 5 years, were included in the analysis. The authors also took their own experience into account.

RESULTS: Pre-operative assessment of focal lesions in the breasts is crucial in the planning of further therapeutic management. The role of fine-needle aspiration biopsy has been reduced lately due to its low sensitivity and specificity as well as a high rate of non-diagnostic, suspicious and false negative results. This method does not enable one to differentiate between in situ and invasive disease. Currently, fine-needle biopsy is recommended for cystic lesions, suspected of being recurrences in the chest wall, and lymph node metastases. Core-needle biopsy is the basic diagnostic method of breast lesions. According to the recommendations of the Polish Ultrasound Society and American College of Radiology, BIRADS 4 and 5 lesions should be evaluated histopathologically. Core-needle biopsy makes it possible to establish a final diagnosis more frequently than fine-needle biopsy, both in the case of benign and malignant lesions. It delivers more information about the nature of a tumor (mutation of HER-2, estrogen and progesterone receptors and Ki-67 index). Its limitations include: underestimation of invasion and failure to recognize the components of ductal carcinoma in situ in papillary and atypical lesions. Single fine-needle aspiration biopsy is inexpensive, but when considering the cost of further diagnosis due to non-diagnostic, suspicious and atypical results, this method generates high additional costs.

CONCLUSIONS: Microscopic verification of focal breast lesions is crucial for further therapeutic decisions. It has been proven that histopathological verification is more accurate and has more advantages than cytological assessment.

Keywords: atypical ductal hyperplasia; core-needle biopsy; ductal carcinoma in situ; fine-needle aspiration biopsy; papillary lesions

References

  1. Radiology. 2003 May;227(2):549-55 - PubMed
  2. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014 Jun;202(6):1389-94 - PubMed
  3. J Clin Pathol. 2012 Apr;65(4):287-92 - PubMed
  4. Cancer Imaging. 2012 Oct 31;12:488-96 - PubMed
  5. Ultraschall Med. 2012 Oct;33(5):447-54 - PubMed
  6. Br J Surg. 2013 Dec;100(13):1756-63 - PubMed
  7. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2017 Feb;61(1):29-33 - PubMed
  8. J Breast Cancer. 2011 Mar;14(1):1-7 - PubMed
  9. World J Surg Oncol. 2011 Aug 11;9:87 - PubMed
  10. Diagn Cytopathol. 2003 Jun;28(6):329-34 - PubMed
  11. Cancer. 2016 Sep 15;122(18):2819-27 - PubMed
  12. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009 Feb;16(2):281-4 - PubMed
  13. J Am Coll Surg. 2012 Mar;214(3):280-7 - PubMed
  14. Cell Rep. 2016 Jul 26;16(4):1166-1179 - PubMed
  15. Br J Cancer. 2006 Jul 3;95(1):62-6 - PubMed
  16. Breast. 2007 Jun;16(3):303-6 - PubMed
  17. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2014 Feb;7(2):211-7 - PubMed
  18. Acta Oncol. 2008;47(6):1037-45 - PubMed
  19. Pathol Oncol Res. 2015 Jul;21(3):535-46 - PubMed
  20. J Ultrason. 2012 Sep;12(50):245-61 - PubMed
  21. Diagn Cytopathol. 2011 May;39(5):380-8 - PubMed
  22. Am J Med Sci. 2012 Jul;344(1):28-31 - PubMed
  23. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2013 Sep-Oct;19(5):371-6 - PubMed
  24. Acta Radiol. 2003 Jul;44(4):387-91 - PubMed
  25. Radiology. 2011 Jul;260(1):119-28 - PubMed
  26. Cancer. 1996 Aug 15;78(4):773-7 - PubMed
  27. Radiology. 1993 May;187(2):507-11 - PubMed
  28. Radiology. 2003 Mar;226(3):779-82 - PubMed
  29. Pathology. 2007 Aug;39(4):391-5 - PubMed
  30. Int J Surg Pathol. 2014 Dec;22(8):695-8 - PubMed
  31. Ultrasonography. 2014 Apr;33(2):128-35 - PubMed
  32. Cancer. 2013 Mar 1;119(5):1073-9 - PubMed
  33. World J Surg. 2001 Jun;25(6):767-72 - PubMed
  34. Am J Clin Pathol. 2012 Jul;138(1):72-8 - PubMed
  35. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000 Nov;175(5):1341-6 - PubMed
  36. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010 Aug;123(1):1-8 - PubMed
  37. Pathol Int. 2012 Feb;62(2):120-6 - PubMed
  38. Breast Cancer Res. 2003;5(5):254-7 - PubMed
  39. Gland Surg. 2014 May;3(2):120-7 - PubMed
  40. Acta Radiol. 2005 Nov;46(7):690-5 - PubMed
  41. Diagn Cytopathol. 2015 Dec;43(12 ):978-86 - PubMed
  42. Breast. 2013 Aug;22(4):537-42 - PubMed
  43. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012 Oct;19(10):3264-9 - PubMed
  44. Cancer. 1998 Feb 15;82(4):679-88 - PubMed
  45. Br J Radiol. 2011 Oct;84(1006):869-74 - PubMed
  46. Eur J Radiol. 2010 Jun;74(3):519-24 - PubMed
  47. J Clin Pathol. 2001 Feb;54(2):121-5 - PubMed
  48. Am J Surg Pathol. 2006 Jun;30(6):665-72 - PubMed

Publication Types