Browsing by Author "Esen, Gul"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3

Image-guided breast biopsy and localisation: recommendations for information to women and referring physicians by the European Society of Breast Imaging
(SPRINGEROPEN, 2020-01-01) Bick, Ulrich; Trimboli, Rubina M.; Athanasiou, Alexandra; Balleyguier, Corinne; Baltzer, Pascal A. T.; Bernathova, Maria; Borbely, Krisztina; Brkljacic, Boris; Carbonaro, Luca A.; Clauser, Paola; Cassano, Enrico; Colin, Catherine; Esen, Gul; Evans, Andrew; Fallenberg, Eva M.; Fuchsjaeger, Michael H.; Gilbert, Fiona J.; Helbich, Thomas H.; Heywang-Koebrunner, Sylvia H.; Herranz, Michel; Kinkel, Karen; Kilburn-Toppin, Fleur; Kuhl, Christiane K.; Lesaru, Mihai; Lobbes, Marc B. I.; Mann, Ritse M.; Martincich, Laura; Panizza, Pietro; Pediconi, Federica; Pijnappel, Ruud M.; Pinker, Katja; Schiaffino, Simone; Sella, Tamar; Thomassin-Naggara, Isabelle; Tardivon, Anne; Van Ongeval, Chantal; Wallis, Matthew G.; Zackrisson, Sophia; Forrai, Gabor; Herrero, Julia Camps; Sardanelli, Francesco; EUSOBI, European Soc Breast Imaging
We summarise here the information to be provided to women and referring physicians about percutaneous breast biopsy and lesion localisation under imaging guidance. After explaining why a preoperative diagnosis with a percutaneous biopsy is preferred to surgical biopsy, we illustrate the criteria used by radiologists for choosing the most appropriate combination of device type for sampling and imaging technique for guidance. Then, we describe the commonly used devices, from fine-needle sampling to tissue biopsy with larger needles, namely core needle biopsy and vacuum-assisted biopsy, and how mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, ultrasound, or magnetic resonance imaging work for targeting the lesion for sampling or localisation. The differences among the techniques available for localisation (carbon marking, metallic wire, radiotracer injection, radioactive seed, and magnetic seed localisation) are illustrated. Type and rate of possible complications are described and the issue of concomitant antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy is also addressed. The importance of pathological-radiological correlation is highlighted: when evaluating the results of any needle sampling, the radiologist must check the concordance between the cytology/pathology report of the sample and the radiological appearance of the biopsied lesion. We recommend that special attention is paid to a proper and tactful approach when communicating to the woman the need for tissue sampling as well as the possibility of cancer diagnosis, repeat tissue sampling, and or even surgery when tissue sampling shows a lesion with uncertain malignant potential (also referred to as ``high-risk{''} or B3 lesions). Finally, seven frequently asked questions are answered.
Position paper on screening for breast cancer by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) and 30 national breast radiology bodies from Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Lithuania, Moldova, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey
(SPRINGER, 2017-01-01) Sardanelli, Francesco; Aase, Hildegunn S.; Alvarez, Marina; Azavedo, Edward; Baarslag, Henk J.; Balleyguier, Corinne; Baltzer, Pascal A.; Beslagic, Vanesa; Bick, Ulrich; Bogdanovic-Stojanovic, Dragana; Briediene, Ruta; Brkljacic, Boris; Herrero, Julia Camps; Colin, Catherine; Cornford, Eleanor; Danes, Jan; de Geer, Gerard; Esen, Gul; Evans, Andrew; Fuchsjaeger, Michael H.; Gilbert, Fiona J.; Graf, Oswald; Hargaden, Gormlaith; Helbich, Thomas H.; Heywang-Koebrunner, Sylvia H.; Ivanov, Valentin; Jonsson, Asbjorn; Kuhl, Christiane K.; Lisencu, Eugenia C.; Luczynska, Elzbieta; Mann, Ritse M.; Marques, Jose C.; Martincich, Laura; Mortier, Margarete; Mueller-Schimpfle, Markus; Ormandi, Katalin; Panizza, Pietro; Pediconi, Federica; Pijnappel, Ruud M.; Pinker, Katja; Rissanen, Tarja; Rotaru, Natalia; Saguatti, Gianni; Sella, Tamar; Slobodnikova, Jana; Talk, Maret; Taourel, Patrice; Trimboli, Rubina M.; Vejborg, Ilse; Vourtsis, Athina; Forrai, Gabor
EUSOBI and 30 national breast radiology bodies support mammography for population-based screening, demonstrated to reduce breast cancer (BC) mortality and treatment impact. According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the reduction in mortality is 40 \% for women aged 50-69 years taking up the invitation while the probability of false-positive needle biopsy is < 1 \% per round and overdiagnosis is only 1-10 \% for a 20-year screening. Mortality reduction was also observed for the age groups 40-49 years and 70-74 years, although with ``limited evidence{''}. Thus, we firstly recommend biennial screening mammography for average-risk women aged 50-69 years
Vacuum-assisted stereotactic breast biopsy in the diagnosis and management of suspicious microcalcifications
(TURKISH SOC RADIOLOGY, 2016-01-01) Esen, Gul; Tutar, Burcin; Uras, Cihan; Calay, Zerrin; Ince, Umit; Tutar, Onur
PURPOSE We aimed to present our biopsy method and retrospectively evaluate the results, upgrade rate, and follow-up findings of stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VABB) procedures performed in our clinic. METHODS Two hundred thirty-four patients with mammographically detected nonpalpable breast lesions underwent VABB using a 9 gauge biopsy probe and prone biopsy table. A total of 195 patients (median age 53 years, range 32-80 years) with 198 microcalcification-only lesions with a follow- up of at least one year were included in the study. The location of the lesion relative to the needle was determined from the postfire images, and unlike the conventional technique, tissue retrieval was predominantly performed from that location, followed by a complete 360 degrees rotation, if needed. RESULTS The median core number was 8.5. Biopsy results revealed 135 benign, 24 atypical, and 39 malignant lesions. The total upgrade rate at surgery was 7.7\% (6.1\% for ductal carcinomas in situ and 10.5\% for atypical lesions). Patients with benign lesions were followed up for a median period of 27.5 months, with no interval change. At the follow-up, scar formation was seen in 23 patients (17\%)