Introduction: Breast Screen Australia and Breast Screen Aotearoa guidelines recommend breast biopsy marker (BBM) use in indicated patients. This study aims to evaluate breast biopsy practice and BBM utilisation by modality. Methods: An online survey was disseminated to radiologists who identified 'breast imaging' as their area of practice in the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) customer relationship management system. Survey questions addressed participant demographics and factors relating to BBM use. Results: Most respondents (72%) place between 1 and 4 BBMs per week. Almost all (99%) respondents perform ultrasound-guided biopsy of the breast or axillary nodes, with 85% performing stereotactic or tomosynthesis-guided breast biopsy and 27% performing MRI-guided breast biopsy. BBM utilisation differs by modality, with 97% respondents always placing a BBM post-MRIguided breast biopsy, 50% always placing a BBM post-stereotactic-guided biopsy and 3% always placing a BBM post-ultrasound-guided breast biopsy. Conclusions: Almost all radiologists perform breast biopsy using ultrasound, stereotactic/tomosynthesis or MRI guidance. BBM utilisation varies by modality, with 72% of respondents placing between 1 and 4 clips per week. Reasons for placing or not placing BBM aligned with prior studies. This is the first study to evaluate the number of breast biopsies performed by radiologists on a weekly or monthly basis, providing a useful platform for comparison in the local setting.

Introduction: Breast Screen Australia and Breast Screen Aotearoa guidelines recommend breast biopsy marker (BBM) use in indicated patients. This study aims to evaluate whether BBM cost and availability impacts BBM utilisation. Methods: An online survey was disseminated to radiologists who identified 'breast imaging' as their area of practice in the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) customer relationship management system. Survey questions addressed participant demographics and factors relating to BBM use. Results: Most (92%, 245/266) participants report that BBMs are routinely available at their place of practice. Those employed in private practice were more likely to report that BBMs are not routinely available. 22% (58/266) of radiologists report that BBM cost influences choice of biopsy type (core biopsy vs fine needle aspirate), this finding was more frequent in those employed in private practice. 47% of respondents report that the cost of BBMs is passed on to the patient, with all these respondents employed in a private or mixed private/public setting. Half the respondents (133/266) reported that their decision to use BBMs would be influenced by the availability of insurance coverage to cover BBM costs. Conclusions: Results suggest that BBM cost and availability influences both choice of biopsy type (core biopsy vs FNA) and choice to use a BBM. Radiologists working in private practice or mixed private/public practice report that BBMs are less likely to be available for use, and that BBM cost is more likely passed to the patient; possibly disadvantaging patients who present to private radiology providers with imaging findings or conditions that would indicate BBM insertion under current national guidelines.

Introduction In Australia, the usual approach to breast lesions where core biopsy returns an uncertain result (“B3” breast lesion) is to perform surgical diagnostic open biopsy (DOB). This is associated with patient time off work, costs of hospital admission, risks of general anaesthesia and surgical complications. The majority of B3 lesions return benign results following surgery. Vacuum assisted excision biopsy (VAEB) is a less invasive, lower cost alternative, and is standard of care for selected B3 lesions in the United Kingdom. Similar use of VAEB in Australia, could save many women unnecessary surgery. The aim of this study was to document our experience during the introduction of VAEB as an alternative to DOB for diagnosis of selected B3 lesions. Methods The multidisciplinary team developed an agreed VAEB pathway for selected B3 lesions. Technically accessible papillary lesions, mucocele‐like lesions and radial scars without atypia measuring ≤ 15mm were selected. Results Over a 7 month period, 18 women with 20 B3 lesions were offered VAEB. 16 women (18 lesions) chose VAEB over DOB. Papillomas were the commonest lesion type. All lesions were successfully sampled: 17/18 were benign. One lesion (6%) was upgraded to malignancy (ductal carcinoma in situ on VAEB, invasive ductal carcinoma at surgery). No major complications occurred. Patient satisfaction was high: 15/16 respondents would again choose VAEB over surgery. Conclusion VAEB is a patient‐preferred, safe, well‐tolerated, lower‐cost alternative to DOB for definitive diagnosis of selected B3 breast lesions.

No abstract

No abstract