Table 14Strength of evidence for underestimation rates in women at average risk of cancer

OutcomeComparison or Biopsy MethodOverall RatingKey Findings and Comments
DCIS underestimationUltrasound-guided, automatedLow– Average underestimation probability: 0.38 (0.26 to 0.51) [14 studies]
Ultrasound-guided, vacuum-assistedLow– Average underestimation probability: 0.09 (0.02 to 0.26) [5 studies]
Stereotactically guided, automatedLow– Average underestimation probability: 0.26 (0.19 to 0.36) [18 studies]
Stereotactically guided, vacuum-assistedLow– Average underestimation probability: 0.11 (0.08 to 0.14) [34 studies]
Other biopsy methodsInsufficientNo available studies or few studies with small numbers of lesions.
High risk lesion underestimation rateUltrasound-guided, automatedLow– Average underestimation probability: 0.25 (0.16 to 0.36) [21 studies]
Ultrasound-guided, vacuum-assistedLow– Average underestimation probability: 0.11 (0.02 to 0.33) [9 studies]
Stereotactically guided, automatedLow– Average underestimation probability: 0.47 (0.37 to 0.58) [29 studies]
Stereotactically guided, vacuum-assistedLow– Average underestimation probability: 0.18 (0.13 to 0.24) [40 studies]
Other biopsy methodsInsufficientNo available studies or few studies with small numbers of lesions

DCIS = ductal carcinoma in situ.

From: Discussion

Cover of Core Needle and Open Surgical Biopsy for Diagnosis of Breast Lesions
Core Needle and Open Surgical Biopsy for Diagnosis of Breast Lesions: An Update to the 2009 Report [Internet].
Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, No. 139.
Dahabreh IJ, Wieland LS, Adam GP, et al.
Copyright Notice

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.