Stereotaxic techniques Archives - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia

  • Artigos Originais

    Diagnostic accuracy of stereotactic core-needle biopsy of non-palpable breast lesions categorized as BI-RADS® 4

    Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2007;29(12):608-613

    Summary

    Artigos Originais

    Diagnostic accuracy of stereotactic core-needle biopsy of non-palpable breast lesions categorized as BI-RADS® 4

    Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. 2007;29(12):608-613

    DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032007001200002

    Views11

    PURPOSE: to assess the accuracy (rate of correct predictions) of stereotactic core needle biopsy (CNB) of risk category BI-RADS® 4 breast lesions. METHODS: a retrospective analysis of category BI-RADS® 4 breast lesions that had been submitted to a stereotactic core-needle biopsy from June 1998 to June 2003. Patients with histological benign results consistent with the radiographic image were referred to mammographic follow-up. Patients with malign diagnosis and papillary lesions were submitted to standard specific treatment. Excisional biopsies were performed when results were benign, but in disagreement with the mammographic image. It was considered as a gold-standard attendance: (1) the mammographic follow-up of low suspicion lesions with benign results at CNB, which stayed unchanged for, at least, three years, and (2) surgical resection when specimen results were malign or benign, but with a high suspicion on mammography. Sensitivity (S) specificity (E) and overall accuracy of stereotactic CNB were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: among the 118 non-palpable lesions of category BI-RADS® 4 submitted to CNB, the results obtained were: 27 malign cases, 81 benign, and ten lesions with atypical or papillary lesions. The statistical analysis comprised 108 patients (atypical and papillary lesions were excluded). CNB sensitivity was 87.1% and specificity 100%. The positive predictive value was 100% and the negative, 95.1%. False negatives occurred in 3.7% (4/108) of cases. The prevalence of malign diagnostics in the BI-RADS® 4 lesions of this sample was 29.7 (31/118).The accuracy of this method in this casuistic was 96.3%. CONCLUSIONS: these results support stereotactic CNB as an extremely reliable alternative to open biopsy, in the diagnosis and definition of breast lesions. In positive results, it is possible to indicate the appropriate therapy, and, in negative (when mammography shows low suspicion), it allows a follow up.

    See more
    Diagnostic accuracy of stereotactic core-needle biopsy of non-palpable breast lesions categorized as BI-RADS® 4

Search

Search in:

Article type
abstract
book-review
brief-report
case-report
correction
editorial
letter
other
rapid-communication
research-article
review-article
Section
Arigos Originais
Article
Artigo de Revisão
Original Articles
Carta ao Editor
Carta ao Editor
Cartas
Case Report
Case Reports
Caso e Tratamento
Clinical Consensus Recommendation
Corrigendum
Editoriais
Editorial
Equipamentos e Métodos
Errata
Erratas
Erratum
FEBRASGO POSITION STATEMENT
Febrasgo Statement
Febrasgo Statement Position
FIGO Statement
GUIDELINES
Integrative Review
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Métodos e Técnicas
Nota do Editor
Nota Prévia
Original Article
Original Article/Contraception
Original Article/Infertility
Original Article/Obstetrics
Original Article/Oncology
Original Article/Sexual Violence/Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology
Original Article/Teaching and Training
Original Articles
Relato de Caso
Relato de Casos
Relatos de Casos
Reply to the Letter to the Editor
Resposta dos Autores
Resumo De Tese
Resumos de Tese
Resumos de Teses
Resumos dos Trabalhos Premiados no 50º Congresso Brasileiro de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
Review
Review Article
Review Articles
Revisão
Short Communication
Special Article
Systematic Review
Técnica e Equipamentos
Técnicas e Equipamentos
Técnicas e Métodos
Trabalhos Originais
Year / Volume
2024; v.46
2023; v.45
2022; v.44
2021; v.43
2020; v.42
2019; v.41
2018; v.40
2017; v.39
2016; v.38
2015; v.37
2014; v.36
2013; v.35
2012; v.34
2011; v.33
2010; v.32
2009; v.31
2008; v.30
2007; v.29
2006; v.28
2005; v.27
2004; v.26
2003; v.25
2002; v.24
2001; v.23
2000; v.22
1999; v.21
1998; v.20
ISSUE