Download PDF
Senologie - Zeitschrift für Mammadiagnostik und -therapie 2014; 11(3): 143-152
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1385222
Wissenschaftliche Arbeit
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Interdisziplinäre Konsensus-Guidelines für die Durchführung von MRT-gestützten Vakuumbiopsien der Schweizer Gesellschaft für Senologie (SGS) – erarbeitet durch die MIBB Arbeitsgruppe

Interdisciplinary Consensus Guidelines on the Use of MR-Supported Vacuum Biopsies of the Swiss Society of Senology (SGS) – Developed by the MIBB Working Group
C. Kurtz
1   Institut für Radiologie, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Schweiz
,
R. A. Kubik-Huch
2   Institut für Radiologie, Kantonsspital Baden, Schweiz
,
G. Kampmann
3   Clinica Sant‘Anna, Lugano, Schweiz
,
C. Rageth
4   Brust-Zentrum Zürich Seefeld, Schweiz
,
C. Öhlschlegel
5   Institut für Pathologie, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, Schweiz
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
07 October 2014 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Mit zunehmendem Einsatz der Mamma-MRT-Bildgebung hat in den letzten Jahren in der Schweiz auch die Zahl an abklärungsbedürftigen, nur im MRT sichtbaren Befunden stetig zugenommen. Infolgedessen wurden von der Arbeitsgruppe für minimalinvasive Brustbiopsien (MIBB), in Zusammenarbeit mit der Schweizer Gesellschaft für Senologie (SGS), Qualitätskriterien im Konsensus erarbeitet, die für alle in der Schweiz durchgeführten MRT-gesteuerten Vakuumbiopsien gelten. Die Konsensus-Guidelines beziehen sich auf jährlich zu erbringende Fallzahlen, Vorgehensweise vor, während und nach der Intervention sowie der internetbasierten Dokumentation.

Abstract

With the increasing use of breast MR-imaging, also the number of MR-only lesions to be evaluated has grown steadily in Switzerland over recent years. As a consequence the Minimal Invasive Breast Biopsies Working Group (MIBB), in cooperation with the Swiss Society of Senology (SGS), has developed quality criteria in consensus which apply to all MR-guided vacuum biopsies in Switzerland. The consensus guidelines refer to the annual number of cases to be provided, the procedure before, during and after the intervention as well as the internet based documentation.

Schlüsselwörter

MRT - Vakuumbiopsie - Mamma - Guideline

Keywords

MRT - vacuum biopsy - breast - guideline
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Bieling HB et al. MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study. Lancet 2007; 370: 485-491
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kim DY, Moon WK, Cho N et al. MRI of the breast for the detection and assessment of the size of ductal carcinoma in situ. Kor J Radiol 2007; 8: 32-39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Van Goethem M, Schelfout K, Kersschot E et al. MR mammography is useful in the preoperative locoregional staging of breast carcinomas with extensive intraductal component. Eur J Radiol 2007; 62: 273-282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Houssami N, Lord SJ, Ciatto S. Breast cancer screening: emerging role of new imaging techniques as adjuncts to mammography. Med J Aust 2009; 190: 493-497
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Schouten van der Velden AP, Schlooz-Vries MS, Boetes C et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of ductal carcinoma in situ: what is its clinical application? A review. Am J Surg 2009; 198: 262-269
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Brennan ME, Houssami N, Lord S et al. Magnetic resonance imaging screening of the contralateral breast in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of incremental cancer detection and impact on surgical management. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 5640-5649
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. American Cancer Society Breast Cancer Advisory Group. CA Cancer J Clin 2007; 57: 75-89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lee CH, Dershaw DD, Kopans D et al. Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the Society of Breast Imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 2010; 7: 18-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Heijnsdijk EA, Warner E, Gilbert FJ et al. Differences in natural history between breast cancers in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers and effects of MRI screening-MRISC, MARIBS, and Canadian studies combined. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2012; 21: 1458-1468
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kuhl CK, Jost P, Morakkabati N et al. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast at 3.0 and 1.5 T in the same patients: initial experience. Radiology 2006; 239: 666-676
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Uematsu T, Kasami M, Yuen S et al. Comparison of 3- and 1.5-T dynamic breast MRI for visualization of spiculated masses previously identified using mammography. Am J Roentgenol 2012; 198: W611-W617
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Lourenco AP, Donegan L, Khalil H et al. Improving outcomes of screening breast MRI with practice evolution: Initial clinical experience with 3T compared to 1.5T. J J Magn Reson Imaging 2014; 39: 535-539
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 El Khouli RH, Macura KJ, Barker PB et al. Relationship of temporal resolution to diagnostic performance for dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of the breast. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009; 30: 999-1004
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Matsuoka A, Minato M, Harada M et al. Comparison of 3.0-and 1.5-tesla diffusion-weighted imaging in the visibility of breast cancer. Radiat Med 2008; 26: 15-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Breslin TM, Banerjee M, Gust C et al. Trends in advanced imaging use for women undergoing breast cancer surgery. Cancer 2013; 119: 1251-1256
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Imschweiler T, Haueisen H, Kampmann G et al. MRI-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: comparison with stereotactically guided and ultrasound-guided techniques. Eur Radiol 2014; 24: 128-135
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Köchli OR, Rageth JC, Brun del Re R et al. Onkologie – Bildgesteuerte minimal-invasive Mammaeingriffe: Konsensusstatements für die Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Senologie (SGS) und die Arbeitsgruppe Bildgesteuerte minimal-invasive Mammaeingriffe. Senologie 2009; 6: 181-184
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Heywang-Köbrunner SH, Sinnatamby R, Lebeau A et al. Interdisciplinary consensus on the uses and technique of MR-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VAB): results of a European consensus meeting. Eur J Radiol 2009; 72: 289-294
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Hauth EA, Jaeger HJ, Lubnau J et al. MR-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy with a handheld biopsy system: clinical experience and results in postinterventional MR mammography after 24h. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 168-176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Li J, Dershaw DD, Lee CH et al. MRI follow-up after concordant, histologically benign diagnosis of breast lesions sampled by MRI-guided biopsy. Am J Roentgenol 2009; 193: 850-855
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 ACR. Practice Guidelines for the performane of magnetic resonance iamging-guided breast interventional procedures. 2011; http://www.acr.org/~/media/FFD2D1CA57ED479DBB6DD0DA0D9E3A87.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Leitlineineprogramm Onkologieder AWMF, Deutschen Krebsgesellschaft e. V. und deutschen Krebshilfe e. V. (Hrsg). Interdisziplinäre S3 Leitlinie für die Diagnsotik, Therapie und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms. Germering/München: Zuckerschwerdt; 2012 3. Aufl.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Price ER, Morris EA. Magnetic resonance imaging-guided breast biopsies: tips and tricks. Can Assoc Radiol J 2011; 62 (01) 15-21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 O'Flynn EA, Wilson AR, Michell MJ. Image-guided breast biopsy: state-of-the-art. Clin Radiol 2010; 65: 259-270
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Brennan SB. Breast magnetic resonance imaging for the interventionalist: magnetic resonance imaging-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol 2014; 17: 40-48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Siegmann-Luz KC, Bahrs SD, Preibsch H et al. Management of breast lesions detectable only on MRI. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2014; 186: 30-36
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Perlet C, Heinig A, Prat X et al. Multicenter study for the evaluation of a dedicated biopsy device for MR-guided vacuum biopsy of the breast. Eur Radiol 2002; 12: 1463-1470
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Pistolese CA, Ciarrapico A, Perretta T et al. Cost-effectiveness of two breast biopsy procedures: surgical biopsy versus vacuum-assisted biopsy. Radiol Med 2012; 117: 539-557
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Katipamula R, Degnim AC, Hoskin T et al. Trends in mastectomy rates at the Mayo Clinic Rochester: effect of surgical year and preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 4082-4088
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Turnbull L, Brown S, Harvey I et al. Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2010; 375: 563-571
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Brasic N, Wisner DJ, Joe BN. Breast MR imaging for extent of disease assessment in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2013; 21: 519-532
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Killelea BK, Gross CP. Is the use of preoperative breast MRI resulting in more invasive breast cancer surgery?. Womens Health 2014; 10: 1-3
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Linda A, Zuiani C, Londero V et al. Outcome of initially only magnetic resonance mammography-detected findings with and without correlate at second-look sonography: distribution according to patient history of breast cancer and lesion size. Breast 2008; 17: 51-57
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Demartini WB, Eby PR, Peacock S et al. Utility of targeted sonography for breast lesions that were suspicious on MRI. Am J Roentgenol 2009; 192: 1128-1134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Abe H, Schmidt RA, Shah RN et al. MR-directed (“Second-Look”) ultrasound examination for breast lesions detected initially on MRI: MR and sonographic findings. Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194: 370-377
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 LaTrenta LR, Menell JH, Morris EA et al. Breast lesions detected with MR imaging: utility and histopathologic importance of identification with US. Radiology 2003; 227: 856-861
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Meissnitzer M, Dershaw DD, Lee CH et al. Targeted ultrasound of the breast in women with abnormal MRI findings for whom biopsy has been recommended. Am J Roentgenol 2009; 193: 1025-1029
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Hashimoto BE, Morgan GN, Kramer DJ et al. Systematic approach to difficult problems in breast sonography. Ultrasound Q 2008; 24: 31-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Müller-Schimpfle MP, Heindel W, Kettritz U et al. Consensus meeting of course directors in breast imaging, 7 May 2011, in Frankfurt am Main – topic: MRI of the breast. Rofo 2012; 184: 919-924
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 D’Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB et al. ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 41 Georg Bongartz, Dominik Weishaupt, Michael Mayr. Neue Kontrastmittelproblematik bei Niereninsuffizienz: Gadoliniuminduzierte Nephrogene Systemische Fibrose (NSF). Schweiz Med Forum 2008; 8: 116-123
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Hefler L, Casselman J, Amaya B et al. Follow-up of breast lesions detected by MRI not biopsied due to absent enhancement of contrast medium. Eur Radiol 2003; 13: 344-346
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Kuhl CK, Elevelt A, Leutner CC et al. Interventional breast MR imaging: clinical use of a stereotactic localization and biopsy device. Radiology 1997; 204: 667-675
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Brennan SB, Sung JS, Dershaw DD et al. Cancellation of MR imaging-guided breast biopsy due to lesion nonvisualization: frequency and follow-up. Radiology 2011; 261: 92-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Niell BL, Lee JM, Johansen C et al. Patient outcomes in canceled MRI-guided breast biopsies. Am J Roentgenol 2014; 202: 223-228
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Mann RM, Kuhl CK, Kinkel K et al. Breast MRI: guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 1307-1318
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Kurtz C. Update in der Mamma-MRT-Technik – Untersuchungsstandards und Qualitätssicherung. Radiologie up2date 2013; 13: 129-142
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Müller-Schimpfle MP, Heindel W, Kettritz U et al. Consensus meeting of course directors in breast imaging, 4 May 2013, in Frankfurt am Main – Topic: Standards in technique and reporting. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2014; 186 (06) 627-634
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Hammond MEH, Hayes DF et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College Of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 2784-2795
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Hicks DG et al. Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update. American Society of Clinical Oncology; College of American Pathologists. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31: 3997-4013
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Shaylor SD, Heller SL, Melsaether AN et al. Short interval follow-up after a benign concordant MR-guided vacuum assisted breast biopsy – is it worthwhile?. Eur Radiol 2014; 24: 1176-1185
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar