Large-core needle biopsy versus fine-needle aspiration biopsy in solid breast lesions: Comparison of costs and diagnostic value

Acta Radiologica

Volumn 49, Issue 8, 2008, Pages 863-869

  Vimpeli, S M ^a   Saarenmaa, I ^b   Huhtala, H ^b   Soimakallio, S ^b  

^a PIRKANMAA HOSPITAL DISTRICT   (Finland)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Biopsy; Breast; Cost effectiveness; Mammography

Indexed keywords

BIOPSY; COST EFFECTIVENESS; HEALTH; NEEDLES; ULTRASONIC IMAGING;

AVERAGE COST; BREAST; BREAST LESIONS; BUDGET CONSTRAINTS; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FINE-NEEDLE ASPIRATION; FINNISH; LARGE-CORE; MAMMOGRAPHY; NEEDLE BIOPSY; POSITIVE RATES; TOTAL COSTS; ULTRASOUND-GUIDANCE;

PHYSICAL THERAPY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST; BREAST TUMOR; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; FINLAND; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PATHOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIOPSY, FINE-NEEDLE; BIOPSY, NEEDLE; BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FEMALE; FINLAND; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY;

EID: 52049123510     PISSN: 02841851     EISSN: 16000455     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02841850802235751     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, Carter WB, Bhargavan M, Lewis RS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment ofbreast cancer. Radiology 2004;233:830-49.
2. Saarenmaa I, Salminen T, Geiger U, Heikkinen P, Hyvarinen S, Isola J, et al. Validity ofradiological examinations of patients with breast cancer in different age groups in a population based study. Breast 2001;10:78-81.
3. Ahmed R, Ali SM. Role ofimaging in diagnosis of carcinoma ofbreast. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2005; 15:238-41.
4. Rizzatto GJ. Towards a more sophisticated use ofbreast ultrasound. Eur Radiol 2001;11:2425-35.
5. Schepps B. Breast imaging: the role ofalternative diagnostic modalities. Med Health R I 2005;88:80-1.
6. del Cura JL, Elizagaray E, Zabala R, Legorburu A, Grande D. The use ofunenhanced Doppler sonography in the evaluation ofsolid breast lesions. Am J Roent genol 2005;184:1788-94.
7. Parikh J, Tickman R. Image-guided tissue sampling: where radiology meets pathology. Breast J 2005;11: 403-9.
8. Graf O, Helbich TH, Fuchsjaeger MH, Hopf G, Morgun M, Graf C, et al. Follow-up ofpalpable circumscribed noncalcified solid breast masses at mammography and US: can biopsy be averted? Radiology 2004;233:850-6.
9. Hatmaker AR, Donahue RM, Tarpley JL, Pearson AS. Cost-effective use of breast biopsy techniques in a Veterans health care system. Am J Surg 2006;192: e37-41.
10. Russin LD. New directions in breast biopsy: review of current minimally invasive methods and presentation of a new coaxial technique. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2000;21:395-403.
11. Meunier M, Clough K. Fine needle aspiration cytology versus percutaneous biopsy ofnonpalpable breast lesions. Eur J Radiol 2002;42:10-6.
12. Helbich TH, Matzek W, Fuchsjager MH. Stereotactic and ultrasound-guided breast biopsy. Eur Radiol 2004;14:383-93.
13. Nasuti JF, Gupta PK, Baloch ZW. Diagnostic value and cost-effectiveness of on-site evaluation of fine-needle aspiration specimens: review of5,688 cases. Diagn Cytopathol 2002;27:1-4.
14. Philpotts LE. Controversies in core-needle breast biopsy. Semin Roentgenol 2001;36:270-83.
15. Delle Chiaie L, Terinde R. Three-dimensional ultrasound-validated large-core needle biopsy: is it a reliable method for the histological assessment of breast lesions? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004;23:393-7.
16. Crystal P, Koretz M, Shcharynsky S, Makarov V, Strano S. Accuracy ofsonographically guided 14-gauge core-needle biopsy: results of 715 consecutive breast biopsies with at least two-year follow-up of benign lesions. J Clin Ultrasound 2005;33:47-52.
17. Bolivar AV, Alonso-Bartolome P, Garcia EO, Ayensa FG. Ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy ofnon-palpable breast lesions: a prospective analysis in 204 cases. Acta Radiol 2005;46:690-5.
18. Sauer G, Deissler H, Strunz K, Helms G, Remmel E, Koretz K, et al. Ultrasound-guided large-core needle biopsies ofbreast lesions: analysis of962 cases to determine the number ofsamples for reliable tumour classification. Br J Cancer 2005;92:231-5.
19. Liberman L, Sama MP. Cost-effectiveness of stereo-tactic 11-gauge directional vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Am J Roentgenol 2000;175:53-8.
20. Teh W. Intervention widens breast disease options. Diagnostic Imaging Europe 2006;February/March: 20-24, 63.
21. Zonderland HM, Pope TL Jr, Nieborg AJ. The positive predictive value ofthe breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) as a method ofquality assessment in breast imaging in a hospital population. Eur Radiol 2004;14:1743-50.
22. Hujanen T. Guidelines for health care unit costs in Finland 2001. Helsinki, Finland: National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health; 2003; 1/2003, p. 86.
23. Riegelman RK, Hirsch P. Studying a study and testing a test. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilk ins; 2004.
24. Morris AM, Flowers CR, Morris KT, Schmidt WA, Pommier RF, Vetto JT. Comparing the cost-effectiveness ofthe triple test score to traditional methods for evaluating palpable breast masses. Med Care 2003; 41:962-71.
25. Hrung JM, Langlotz CP, Orel SG, Fox KR, Schnall MD, Schwartz JS. Cost-effectiveness of MR imaging and core-needle biopsy in the preoperative work-up of suspicious breast lesions. Radiology 1999;213:39-49.
26. Groenewoud JH, Pijnappel RM, van den Akker-Van Marle ME, Birnie E, Buijs-van der Woude T, Mali WP, et al. Cost-effectiveness of stereotactic large-core needle biopsy for nonpalpable breast lesions compared to open-breast biopsy. Br J Cancer 2004;90:383-92.
27. Fahy BN, Bold RJ, Schneider PD, Khatri V, Goodnight JE Jr. Cost-benefit analysis of biopsy methods for suspicious mammographic lesions. Arch Surg 2001;136: 990-4; discussion 994-5.
28. Bodai BI, Boyd B, Brown L, Wadley H, Zannis VJ, Holzman M. Total cost comparison of 2 biopsy methods for nonpalpable breast lesions. Am J Manag Care 2001;7:527-38.
29. Alonso-Bartolome P, Vega-Bolivar A, Torres-Tabanera M, Ortega E, Acebal-Blanco M, Garijo-Ayensa F, et al. Sonographically guided 11-G directional vacuum-assisted breast biopsy as an alternative to surgical excision: utility and cost study in probably benign lesions. Acta Radiol 2004;45:390-6.
30. Gur D, Wallace LP, Klym AH, Hardesty LA, Abrams GS, Shah R, et al. Trends in recall, biopsy, and positive biopsy rates for screening mammography in an academic practice. Radiology 2005;235:396-401.
31. Doyle AJ, King AR, Miller MV, Collins JP. Implementation ofimage-guided large-core needle biopsy of the breast on a limited budget. Australas Radiol 1998;42: 199-203.
32. Fenster A, Surry KJ, Mills GR, Downey DB. 3D ultrasound guided breast biopsy system. Ultrasonics 2004;42:769-74.
33. Klavus J, Linna M. International health care cost-comparisons are problematic. Chess online 2006; 1/2006.