We have located links that may give you full text access.
Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.
Rate of insufficient samples for fine-needle aspiration for nonpalpable breast lesions in a multicenter clinical trial: The Radiologic Diagnostic Oncology Group 5 Study. The RDOG5 investigators.
Cancer 1998 Februrary 16
BACKGROUND: Radiologic Diagnostic Oncology Group 5 is a multicenter clinical trial designed to evaluate fine-needle aspiration (FNA) of nonpalpable breast lesions performed by multiple operators using the same protocol.
METHODS: Four hundred and nineteen women with mammographically detected nonpalpable breast lesions were enrolled on the trial at 18 institutions. Group A institutions randomized women to stereotactically guided FNA (SFNA) followed by stereotactically guided core needle biopsy (SCNB), or SCNB only. Group B institutions randomized women to SFNA and SCNB, SCNB, or ultrasonographically guided FNA followed by ultrasonographically guided core needle biopsy (USCNB), or USCNB only. A total of 377 women were eligible for analysis.
RESULTS: FNA yielded 128 insufficient samples for the 377 patients (33.95%; 95% confidence interval, 29.2-38.7%). The rate of insufficient samples varied by type of lesion with calcified lesions associated with a significantly higher rate of insufficient sampling than masses (P < 0.001). The radiologist's level of suspicion of the lesion was not a statistically significant predictor of insufficient samples for mass lesions, but was a predictor for calcified lesions. For the 336 lesions for which histologic information was available, insufficient samples occurred in significantly more benign than malignant lesions.
CONCLUSIONS: The high rate of insufficient samples for FNA of nonpalpable breast lesions in this multicenter trial makes its use impractical in this setting. Because of this factor, the study was terminated early.
METHODS: Four hundred and nineteen women with mammographically detected nonpalpable breast lesions were enrolled on the trial at 18 institutions. Group A institutions randomized women to stereotactically guided FNA (SFNA) followed by stereotactically guided core needle biopsy (SCNB), or SCNB only. Group B institutions randomized women to SFNA and SCNB, SCNB, or ultrasonographically guided FNA followed by ultrasonographically guided core needle biopsy (USCNB), or USCNB only. A total of 377 women were eligible for analysis.
RESULTS: FNA yielded 128 insufficient samples for the 377 patients (33.95%; 95% confidence interval, 29.2-38.7%). The rate of insufficient samples varied by type of lesion with calcified lesions associated with a significantly higher rate of insufficient sampling than masses (P < 0.001). The radiologist's level of suspicion of the lesion was not a statistically significant predictor of insufficient samples for mass lesions, but was a predictor for calcified lesions. For the 336 lesions for which histologic information was available, insufficient samples occurred in significantly more benign than malignant lesions.
CONCLUSIONS: The high rate of insufficient samples for FNA of nonpalpable breast lesions in this multicenter trial makes its use impractical in this setting. Because of this factor, the study was terminated early.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app