NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
Structured Abstract
Objective:
Core needle biopsy and open surgical biopsy are the most frequently used procedures for diagnosis of suspicious breast lesions. An AHRQ evidence report on the comparative effectiveness and adverse events of breast biopsy methods was completed in 2009. The availability of additional studies and the uncertainties surrounding newer biopsy techniques prompted an update of that report.
Study eligibility criteria:
We searched nine electronic databases (last search on December 16, 2013) for English-language full-text reports of prospective or retrospective cohort studies of women not previously diagnosed with breast cancer who were undergoing biopsy for diagnosis of a breast lesion.
Study appraisal and synthesis methods:
A single investigator extracted quantitative and qualitative data from each study; a second reviewer verified extracted data. We assessed the strength and applicability of the evidence. We performed Bayesian meta-analyses to estimate summary test performance and performed indirect comparisons to assess the relative effectiveness of alternative core needle biopsy methods. Statistical models accounted for between-study heterogeneity.
Results:
One hundred and sixty studies of moderate to high risk of bias provided information on the test performance of alternative core needle biopsy techniques. We found one new study investigating the test performance of open biopsy. For women at average risk of cancer, both ultrasound- and stereotactically guided biopsies had average sensitivities higher than 0.97 and average specificities ranging from 0.92 to 0.99; freehand biopsy methods had average sensitivity of 0.91 and specificity of 0.98. However, evidence on the test performance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsy (6 studies) was insufficient to draw conclusions. Test performance did not differ between women at average and high baseline risk of cancer, but results were imprecise. Test performance of automated and vacuum-assisted devices (when using the same imaging guidance) was fairly similar (absolute differences in sensitivity and specificity ≤ 0.1). One hundred and forty-one studies contributed information on potential harms of different core needle biopsy techniques. Overall, core needle biopsy had a lower risk of complications than open surgical biopsy; however information on the latter was sparse. The absolute incidence of adverse events was low and the incidence of severe complications was less than 1 percent for all techniques. Vacuum-assisted procedures appeared to be associated with increased bleeding and hematoma formation; biopsies performed with patients seated upright appeared to be associated with increased risk of vasovagal reactions. Harms were reported inconsistently, raising concerns about selective outcome reporting. We found 10 case reports of patients developing tumors at the site of prior core needle biopsies. We found information on only a few patient-relevant and resource-related outcomes. Based on 42 studies, core needle biopsy obviated the need for surgical procedures in about 75 percent of women. Meta-analysis of 10 studies reporting the number of surgical procedures required after biopsy suggested that the odds of requiring only one procedure were almost 15 times as high among women receiving core needle biopsy, as compared to those receiving open surgical biopsy. However, this result may be confounded by indication.
Limitations:
Patient-level data were unavailable and information about study- or population-level characteristics was too limited to allow the identification of modifiers of test performance, adverse events, or clinical outcomes. Studies reported adverse events incompletely, and did not provide details of their outcome ascertainment methods.
Conclusions:
A large body of evidence suggests that ultrasound and stereotactically guided core needle biopsy procedures have sensitivity and specificity close to that of open biopsy procedures, and are associated with fewer adverse events. The strength of the evidence on the test performance of these methods is deemed moderate because studies are at medium to high risk of bias, but provide precise and fairly consistent results. Freehand procedures have lower sensitivity than imaging-guided methods. The strength of evidence on the comparative test performance of automated and vacuum-assisted devices (when using the same imaging guidance) is deemed low, because of concerns about the risk of bias of included studies and the reliance on indirect comparisons. There were insufficient data to draw conclusions for MRI-guided biopsy or women at high baseline risk of cancer. There is low strength of evidence that vacuum-assisted procedures have a higher risk of bleeding than automated methods. There is moderate strength of evidence that women diagnosed with breast cancer by core needle biopsy are more likely to have their cancer treated with a single surgical procedure, compared with women diagnosed by open surgical biopsy.
Contents
- Preface
- Technical Expert Panel
- Peer Reviewers
- Executive Summary
- Background
- Methods
- AHRQ Task Order Officer
- External Stakeholder Input
- Key Questions
- Analytic Framework
- Scope of the Review
- Literature Search and Abstract Screening
- Study Selection and Eligibility Criteria
- Data Abstraction and Management
- Assessment of the Risk of Bias of Individual Studies
- Data Synthesis
- Grading the Strength of Evidence
- Assessing Applicability
- Peer Review
- Results
- Key Question 1 In women with a palpable or nonpalpable breast abnormality, what is the test performance of different types of core needle breast biopsy compared with open biopsy for diagnosis?
- Key Question 2 In women with a palpable or nonpalpable breast abnormality, what are the adverse events (harms) associated with core needle breast biopsy compared to the open biopsy technique in the diagnosis of breast cancer?
- Key Question 3 How do open biopsy and various core needle techniques differ in terms of patient preference, availability, costs, availability of qualified pathologist interpretations, and other factors that may influence choice of a particular technique?
- Discussion
- Abbreviations
- References
- Appendix A Search Strategy
- Appendix B Excluded Studies
- Appendix C Sensitivity Analysis to the Exclusion of High Risk Lesions on Core Needle Biopsy That Were Confirmed to be High Risk Lesions in Subsequent Open Biopsy or Surgical Excision
- Appendix D Assessment of the Strength of Evidence
Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services1, Contract No. 290-2012-00012 -I, Prepared by: Brown Evidence-Based Practice Center, Providence, RI
Suggested citation:
Dahabreh IJ, Wieland LS, Adam GP, Halladay C, Lau J, Trikalinos TA. Core Needle and Open Surgical Biopsy for Diagnosis of Breast Lesions: An Update to the 2009 Report. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 139. (Prepared by the Brown Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract 290-2012-00012-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 14-EHC040-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. September 2014. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm.
This report is based on research conducted by Brown Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. 290-2012-00012-I). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The information in this report is intended to help health care decisionmakers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information, i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients.
This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or as a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied.
This report may periodically be assessed for the urgency to update. If an assessment is done, the resulting surveillance report describing the methodology and findings will be found on the Effective Health Care Program Web site at: www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov. Search on the title of the report.
None of the investigators have any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report.
- 1
540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; www
.ahrq.gov
- NLM CatalogRelated NLM Catalog Entries
- Review Diagnosis of Right Lower Quadrant Pain and Suspected Acute Appendicitis[ 2015]Review Diagnosis of Right Lower Quadrant Pain and Suspected Acute AppendicitisDahabreh IJ, Adam GP, Halladay CW, Steele DW, Daiello LA, Wieland LS, Zgodic A, Smith BT, Herliczek TW, Shah N, et al. 2015 Dec
- Review Systematic review: comparative effectiveness of core-needle and open surgical biopsy to diagnose breast lesions.[Ann Intern Med. 2010]Review Systematic review: comparative effectiveness of core-needle and open surgical biopsy to diagnose breast lesions.Bruening W, Fontanarosa J, Tipton K, Treadwell JR, Launders J, Schoelles K. Ann Intern Med. 2010 Feb 16; 152(4):238-46. Epub 2009 Dec 14.
- Review Supplemental Screening for Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breasts: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Service Task Force[ 2016]Review Supplemental Screening for Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breasts: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Service Task ForceMelnikow J, Fenton JJ, Whitlock EP, Miglioretti DL, Weyrich MS, Thompson JH, Shah K. 2016 Jan
- Review Screening for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force[ 2016]Review Screening for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task ForceLin JS, Piper MA, Perdue LA, Rutter C, Webber EM, O’Connor E, Smith N, Whitlock EP. 2016 Jun
- Review Screening for Skin Cancer in Adults: An Updated Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force[ 2016]Review Screening for Skin Cancer in Adults: An Updated Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task ForceWernli KJ, Henrikson NB, Morrison CC, Nguyen M, Pocobelli G, Whitlock EP. 2016 Jul
- Core Needle and Open Surgical Biopsy for Diagnosis of Breast LesionsCore Needle and Open Surgical Biopsy for Diagnosis of Breast Lesions
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...