From the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Aachen, RWTH, Pauwelsstr 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany.
Radiology. 2015 Mar;274(3):654-62. doi: 10.1148/radiol.14141397. Epub 2014 Nov 11.
To use digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT)-guided vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) to sample target lesions identified at full-field digital screening mammography and compare clinical performance with that of prone stereotactic (PS) VAB.
In this institutional review board-approved study, 205 patients with 216 mammographic findings suspicious for cancer were scheduled to undergo mammography-guided VAB. Written informed consent was obtained. PS VAB was performed in 159 patients with 165 target lesions. DBT VAB was performed in 46 consecutive patients with 51 target lesions. Tissue-sampling methods and materials (9-gauge needles) were the same with both systems. For calcifications, specimen radiographs were obtained, and for masses or architectural distortions, control mammography or DBT was performed to confirm adequate target lesion sampling. χ(2) and Student t tests were used to compare biopsy time, and the Fisher exact test was used to compare lesion type distribution for DBT versus PS VAB.
Technical success was achieved in 51 of 51 lesions (100%) with DBT VAB versus 154 of 165 lesions (93%) with PS VAB. In one of 11 lesions in which PS VAB failed, DBT VAB was performed successfully. Mean time to complete VAB was 13 minutes ± 3.7 for DBT VAB versus 29 minutes ± 10.1 for PS VAB (P < .0001). Reidentifying and targeting lesions during PS VAB took longer than it did during DBT VAB (P < .0001). Tissue sampling took about the same time for PS VAB and DBT VAB (P = .067). Significantly more "low-contrast" (ie, uncalcified) target lesions were biopsied with DBT VAB (13 of 51 lesions) versus PS VAB (nine of 165 lesions) (P < .0002). No major complications were observed with either system. One patient who underwent DBT VAB in the sitting position and one patient who underwent PS VAB developed self-limiting vasovagal reactions.
Clinical performance of DBT VAB was significantly superior to PS VAB. Because DBT VAB allows use of the full detector size for imaging and provides immediate lesion depth information without requiring triangulation, it facilitates target lesion reidentification and sampling of even low-contrast targets, such as uncalcified masses.
利用数字乳腺断层摄影术(DBT)引导真空辅助活检(VAB)对全视野数字化筛查乳腺摄影中发现的靶病变进行取样,并比较其与俯卧位立体定位(PS)VAB 的临床性能。
本研究经机构审查委员会批准,205 例 216 例乳腺 X 线摄影检查发现疑似癌症的患者拟行乳腺 X 线摄影引导 VAB。患者均签署书面知情同意书。159 例患者(165 个靶病变)行 PS VAB,46 例患者(51 个靶病变)行 DBT VAB。两种系统的取样方法和材料(9 号活检针)相同。对于钙化,获取标本的 X 线片;对于肿块或结构扭曲,行对照乳腺 X 线摄影或 DBT 以确认充分的靶病变取样。采用 χ(2)检验和 Student t 检验比较活检时间,采用 Fisher 确切概率法比较 DBT 与 PS VAB 的病变类型分布。
DBT VAB 技术成功率为 51/51(100%),PS VAB 为 154/165(93%)。11 例 PS VAB 失败的患者中有 1 例改行 DBT VAB 成功。DBT VAB 完成 VAB 的平均时间为 13 分钟±3.7 分钟,PS VAB 为 29 分钟±10.1 分钟(P<0.0001)。PS VAB 比 DBT VAB 重新识别和定位病变的时间更长(P<0.0001)。PS VAB 和 DBT VAB 的组织取样时间大致相同(P=0.067)。DBT VAB 活检的“低对比度”(即无钙化)靶病变明显多于 PS VAB(13/51 个病变对 9/165 个病变)(P<0.0002)。两种系统均未发生严重并发症。1 例接受 DBT VAB 坐位检查的患者和 1 例接受 PS VAB 的患者发生了自限性的血管迷走神经性反应。
DBT VAB 的临床性能明显优于 PS VAB。因为 DBT VAB 可以在成像时使用整个探测器的尺寸,并在不需要三角测量的情况下提供即时的病变深度信息,所以它便于重新识别靶病变并对低对比度目标(如未钙化的肿块)进行取样。