Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40996584›Full record

ArticleInsights into imaging2025

Image-guided biopsy of breast lesions-when to use what biopsy technique.

Wendelien B G Sanderink, Julia Camps-Herrero, Alexandra Athanasiou, Henrique L Couto, Kirti Mehta, Popat Palak Bhavesh Thakkar, Pooja Jagmohan, Sara E Vázquez-Manjarrez, Seigo Nakamura, Jelle Wesseling and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Insights into imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Wendelien B G SanderinkDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Wendelien.Sanderink@radboudumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8092-8308
Julia Camps-HerreroBreast Health, Ribera Salud Hospitals, Valencia, Spain.
Alexandra AthanasiouBreast Imaging Department, MITERA Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Henrique L CoutoRedimama-Redimasto Breast Unit, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Kirti MehtaDepartment of Radiology, Imaging Associates/Eastern Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Popat Palak Bhavesh ThakkarDepartment of Radiology, Tata Memorial Hospital and Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India.
Pooja JagmohanDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Sara E Vázquez-ManjarrezDepartment of Breast Imaging and Interventional Radiology, National Institute of Health Sciences and Nutrition Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico.
Seigo NakamuraDivision of Breast Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Showa University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Jelle WesselingDivision of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ritse M MannDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, minimally invasive diagnostic options for breast lesions have expanded, but consensus on optimal biopsy techniques and imaging combinations remains lacking. This study, driven by an adapted RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method and insights from eight experts in breast biopsy from across the world, aims to create consensus for selecting biopsy techniques. Highlighted findings suggest Vacuum-Assisted Biopsy (VAB) for lesions visible exclusively at mammography/tomosynthesis (with or without contrast enhancement) or MRI. Core-needle biopsy (CNB) takes precedence for masses over 5 mm visible under US. The selection of other biopsy techniques during US-guided procedures depends on lesion type, size, and sampling indication. VAB is preferred for smaller masses (< 5 mm), complex cystic and solid lesions with small solid parts, small intraductal masses, architectural distortions, and calcifications visible on US. In re-biopsy scenarios for inconclusive findings or high-risk lesions, the panel suggests two VAB extensions: Extended Vacuum-Assisted Biopsy (EVAB) for unambiguous lesion classification and Vacuum-Assisted Excision (VAE) for complete lesion removal. Furthermore, the panel provides detailed input on how to handle specific cases, such as re-biopsy for lobular neoplasia, flat epithelial atypia and atypical ductal hyperplasia. Surgical excision is advised for DCIS and benign or borderline phyllodes tumors found through initial CNB or VAB. In conclusion, an international expert group formulated recommendations on diagnostic breast biopsies under image guidance, aiming to ensure accurate diagnosis worldwide by providing practical advice on needle selection and biopsy approach. KEY POINTS: Evidence-based literature on the preferred biopsy technique and imaging combination for the diagnosis of breast lesions is sparse, and a general consensus is not available. The selection of biopsy technique for different image-guided procedures depends on lesion type, size, and sampling indication. This international expert panel consensus statement addresses standard approaches for varying biopsy indications.

Indexed as

Breast cancerConsensusNeedle biopsy

Identifiers

PMID40996584
PMCPMC12463797

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.