Upload
wesley-mcbride
View
219
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Assessment of breast microcalcification with
stereotactic guidance using the Spirotome Biopsy Needle.
Comparison with other biopsy devices
Dr Richard HarriesConsultant Radiologist
Diana, Princess of Wales HospitalGrimsby
Breast tissue sampling
Aspiration cytologyCore biopsy (14 -18G, Tru-Cut etc)Mammotome (11G, 8G)Spirotome (11G)
Macro-biopsies - advantages
More reliable – fewer failuresLarger samples – better histological
assessment Tumour markers Molecular biology Genetic expression
Angiogenesis IGFR Notch signaling pathway
BCL2 Oncoprotein Ki-67 antigen P53 protein
DNA Methylation Mammaglobin PI3K pathway
EGFR pathway miRNA Proliferation and mitotic index
Gross Cystic Disease Fluid Protein
Multigene testing S100
Hedgehog Signaling Pathway
Molecular subtyping Smooth Muscle Actin
HER-2 Muscle Actin Estrogen Receptor/Progesterone Receptor
Histology Myosin Heavy Chain WNT signaling cascades
Macro-biopsies - disadvantages
Larger samples – more tissue removalDifficulty assessing margins at surgery –
more extensive surgical removalClip migrationTumour cell migration?More haematoma complicationsReduces breast conserving surgery
Ideal Biopsy Needle Characteristics
Accurate targeting of lesionsLarge samplesMinimum tissue damageQuick and easy to useGood patient acceptanceMinimum complicationsCheap!
What was I using?
Mammotome VAB – until about 2001Spirotome needle subsequently
So why not compare them?
Spirotome system
Spirotome system
Sample population
46 patients with microcalcification on mammography
22 months (October 2007 – August 2009)
148 samples (mean 3 samples per patient)
Clip placement – 14 patients
Procedure
Siemens Mammomat Upright stereotaxisSpirotome 11GLidocaine & adrenalineFaxatron specimen radiology
Data Collection
Date Operator Start/Finish Times Number of Cores + Cores with Calcification Clip Marker Histology Further Management Complications
Patient Questionnaire
Scale of 1 – 5FEARPAINOVERALL REACTION TO PROCEDURE No pain at all 1 2 3 4 5 Very painful
Results - Length of proceduresLength of Procedure
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
1
5
9
13
17
21
25
29
33
37
41
45
Time
Length of Procedure
Average length of procedure = 48 minutes
60% of procedures (27/45) took less than 45 minutes
Results - Microcalcification
45/46 patients’ samples (98%) contained microcalcification
107/148 samples yielded calcification (73%)
Number of microcalcification containing cores/total cores
1 CORE TOTAL
2 CORES TOTAL
3 CORES TOTAL
4 CORES TOTAL
5 CORES TOTAL
6 CORES TOTAL
0 with microcalcification 1
1 with microcalcification 2 2 1 1
2 with microcalcification 11 10 2 1
3 with microcalcification 4 2 2
4 with microcalcification 4 2
5 with microcalcification 1
6 with microcalcification
Totals 2 13 15 8 5 3
Number of microcalcification-containing cores per total number of cores
Samples with calcification
The number of expected specimen with microcalcification (solid line) is related to the total number of cores (horizontal axis). The upper and lower 95 % confidence intervals are depicted as dotted lines. Beyond 4 cores there is no increase in expected specimen with microcalcification.
Number of Cores per patient
Number of cores <5 83% (38/46) Mean number of cores = 3.2 per patient VAB – minimum 6 cores recommended
Many practitioners routinely take 20+
VAB vs. Spirotome Stereotactic biopsies
VAB* SPIROTOME
Mean No of samples
14 3
Success 95% 98%
*Ambrogetti et al 2003; Pfleidere et al 2009
B1 Normal 3
B2 Benign 38
B3 Indeterminate 1
B4 Suspicious of malignancy 0
B5 Malignant 4
TOTAL 46
Results - Histology
43/46 examinations yielded positive histology
Further Management
3 patients (B1/B3) → VAB3 patients with invasive cancer →
mastectomy1 patient with invasive cancer → WLE
Results - Complications
None know of (1 patient fainted but procedure was completed)
Complications – VAB
Simon et al (1999) 71 lesions U/S guided
5 (7%) bled beyond 10 minutes 1 (1%) vasovagal episode
Harries …purely anecdotal ≈ 5 years experience, ≈ 250 patients
Several haematomata requiring surgical treatment Many vasovagal attacks requiring interruption of
procedure
Score Fear Pain Overall
5 4 1 2
4 2 2 5
3 11 12 22
2 8 12 8
1 13 11 1
38 38 38
Average 2,4 2,2 2,9
Patient acceptability
Results – Acceptability Scores
Results – Acceptability Scores
Acceptability scores <4Fear - 84% (32/38)
Pain - 92% (35/38)
Overall - 83% (31/38)
Spirotome - Summary
Simpler and cheaper than VAB systemsHigh positive yield with fewer samplesLess traumaticMore acceptable to patientsCan reach lesions VAB cannot