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

Abstract

AimThe 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 methodsFifty-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.ResultsPre-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.ConclusionsMicroscopic 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.

Quantitative evaluation of tissue stiffness around lesion by sound touch elastography in the diagnosis of benign and malignant breast lesions

“…The BI-RADS classification has high sensitivity but relatively low specificity [18]. In practice, some benign breast lesions were misdiagnosed as malignant lesions, which resulted in unnecessary biopsy.…”

Minimally invasive biopsy in retroperitoneal tumors (Review)

“…FNAB cannot differentiate between an in situ neoplasm and an invasive tumor. The reduced amount of tissue obtained with the FNAB technique can hinder the diagnostic process, the incomplete architectural characteristics of the samples often make it difficult for the cytopathologist to differentiate between different types of tumors, such as lymphomas or other lymphoproliferative disorders, like Castleman disease (14,15). In these cases, a NCB may be needed in order to provide sufficient material for an adequate histological diagnosis.…”

Tomosynthesis guided core biopsy of breast lesions – method review and our results

“…Zbog visoke stope sumnjivih nalaza bez konačne dijagnoze, koji nalažu dodatnu tkivnu dijagnostiku, i lažno negativnih nalaza danas se preporučuje za analizu cističnih promjena i suspektnih aksilarnih limfnih čvorova. [4][5][6][7] Biopsijom širokom iglom dobivaju se cilindrični blokovi tkiva koji omogućuju procjenu strukture tkiva i odnos između stanica. Ovom metodom postavlja se konačna dijagnoza u većeg broja pacijentica nego aspi racijskom citologijom, može se razlikovati invazivni karcinom od neinvazivnoga i mogu se procijeniti važni farmakoterapijski čimbenici poput statusa steroidnih receptora i statusa Her2, što je osobito važno kod paci jentica u kojih planiramo primijeniti neoadjuvantnu kemoterapiju.…”