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

C. Kurtz; R. A. Kubik-Huch; G. Kampmann; C. Rageth; C. Öhlschlegel

doi:10.1055/s-0034-1385222

Senologie - Zeitschrift für Mammadiagnostik und -therapie, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Senologie - Zeitschrift für Mammadiagnostik und -therapie 2014; 11(3): 143-152
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1385222

Wissenschaftliche Arbeit

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

Authors

C. Kurtz

¹Institut für Radiologie, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Schweiz
R. A. Kubik-Huch

²Institut für Radiologie, Kantonsspital Baden, Schweiz
G. Kampmann

³Clinica Sant‘Anna, Lugano, Schweiz
C. Rageth

⁴Brust-Zentrum Zürich Seefeld, Schweiz
C. Öhlschlegel

⁵Institut für Pathologie, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, Schweiz

Abstract

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

Volltext

Referenzen

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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
21 ACR. Practice Guidelines for the performane of magnetic resonance iamging-guided breast interventional procedures. 2011; http://www.acr.org/~/media/FFD2D1CA57ED479DBB6DD0DA0D9E3A87.pdf
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.
23 Price ER, Morris EA. Magnetic resonance imaging-guided breast biopsies: tips and tricks. Can Assoc Radiol J 2011; 62 (01) 15-21
24 O'Flynn EA, Wilson AR, Michell MJ. Image-guided breast biopsy: state-of-the-art. Clin Radiol 2010; 65: 259-270
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
26 Siegmann-Luz KC, Bahrs SD, Preibsch H et al. Management of breast lesions detectable only on MRI. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2014; 186: 30-36
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
38 Hashimoto BE, Morgan GN, Kramer DJ et al. Systematic approach to difficult problems in breast sonography. Ultrasound Q 2008; 24: 31-38
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
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
41 Georg Bongartz, Dominik Weishaupt, Michael Mayr. Neue Kontrastmittelproblematik bei Niereninsuffizienz: Gadoliniuminduzierte Nephrogene Systemische Fibrose (NSF). Schweiz Med Forum 2008; 8: 116-123
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
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
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
45 Niell BL, Lee JM, Johansen C et al. Patient outcomes in canceled MRI-guided breast biopsies. Am J Roentgenol 2014; 202: 223-228
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
47 Kurtz C. Update in der Mamma-MRT-Technik – Untersuchungsstandards und Qualitätssicherung. Radiologie up2date 2013; 13: 129-142
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
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
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
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