Consensus statement on fine-needle aspiration

Intratumoral cancer chemotherapy and immunotherapy: opportunities for nonsystemic preoperative drug delivery

The recent literature documents the growing interest in local intratumoral chemotherapy as well as systemic preoperative chemotherapy with evidence for improved outcomes using these therapeutic modalities. Nevertheless, with few exceptions, the conventional wisdom and standard of care for clinical and surgical oncology remains surgery followed by radiation and/or systemic chemotherapy, as deemed appropriate based on clinical findings. This, in spite of the fact that the toxicity of conventional systemic chemotherapy and immunotherapy affords limited effectiveness and frequently compromises the quality of life for patients. Indeed, with systemic chemotherapy, the oncologist (and the patient) often walks a fine line between attempting tumour remission with prolonged survival and damaging the patient's vital functions to the point of death. In this context, it has probably been obvious for more than 100 years, due in part to the pioneering work of Ehrlich (1878), that targeted or localized drug delivery should be a major goal of chemotherapy. However, there is still only limited clinical use of nonsystemic intratumoral chemotherapy for even those high mortality cancers which are characterized by well defined primary lesions i.e. breast, colorectal, lung, prostate, and skin. There has been a proliferation of intratumoral chemotherapy and immunotherapy research during the past two to three years. It is therefore the objective of this review to focus much more attention upon intratumoral therapeutic concepts which could limit adverse systemic events and which might combine clinically feasible methods for localized preoperative chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy with surgery. Since our review of intratumoral chemoimmunotherapy almost 20 years ago (McLaughlin & Goldberg 1983), there have been few comprehensive reviews of this field; only one of broad scope (Brincker 1993), three devoted specifically to gliomas (Tomita 1991; Walter et al. 1995; Haroun & Brem 2000), one on hepatomas (Venook 2000), one concerning veterinary applications (Theon 1998), and one older review of dermatological applications (Goette 1981). However, none have shed light on practical opportunities for combining intratumoral therapy with subsequent surgical resection. Given the state-of-the-art in clinical and surgical oncology, and the advances that have been made in intratumoral drug delivery, minimally invasive tumour access i.e. fine needle biopsy, new drugs and drug delivery systems, and preoperative chemotherapy, it is timely to present a review of studies which may suggest future opportunities for safer, more effective, and clinically practical non-systemic therapy.

Comparison of fine-needle aspiration cytology and core biopsy for diagnosis of breast cancer

Both fine-needle aspiration (FNA) cytology and core biopsy are useful in the diagnosis of breast cancer. In order to compare the sensitivities of these procedures, we reviewed 209 patients with breast cancer who had either FNA, core biopsy, or both, and also either mastectomy or lumpectomy. Sensitivities for FNA and core biopsies for diagnosing breast cancer were calculated and compared. Sensitivity for FNA or core biopsies interpreted as either atypical or malignant was 93.8% for FNA and 90.1% for core biopsy (P > 0.05). Sensitivity for FNA or core biopsies interpreted as malignant was 65.4% for FNA and 88.7% for core biopsy (P < 0.0001). Sensitivities of FNA interpreted as either atypical or malignant were 92.4% for FNA performed by pathologists and 100% for FNA by nonpathologists (P > 0.05). Sensitivities of FNA interpreted as malignant were 75.8% for FNA by pathologists and 20.0% for FNA by nonpathologists (P < 0.00001). Both FNA and core biopsies are sensitive procedures for the detection of breast cancer. There was no significant difference between sensitivity of FNA and core biopsies interpreted as either atypia or malignancy, although the sensitivity of core biopsies interpreted as unequivocal malignancy was greater than that of FNA. FNAs performed by pathologists were more sensitive than FNAs performed by nonpathologists in making an unequivocal diagnosis of breast cancer.

Diagnostic value of ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy, core-needle biopsy, and evaluation of combined use in the diagnosis of breast lesions

BACKGROUND

To investigate whether ultrasound-guided core-needle biopsy (US-CNB) has more diagnostic value for breast tumors than ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (US-FNAB) and to evaluate their combined use in patients with breast tumors.

STUDY DESIGN

US-FNAB was carried out in 233 patients with breast tumors (254 lesions); both US-FNAB and US-CNB (combined biopsy) were performed in 81 of these patients (82 lesions). The diagnosis obtained by US-FNAB and US-CNB was compared with the surgical findings and the diagnostic value of US-CNB and combined biopsy were retrospectively evaluated.

RESULTS

The sensitivity of US-FNAB was 86.9%, the specificity was 78.6%, and the accuracy was 84%. In contrast, the sensitivity of US-CNB was 86.2%, the specificity was 95.8%, and the accuracy was 89%. The specificity of US-CNB was significantly higher than that of US-FNAB and the inadequate biopsy rate of US-CNB was significantly lower than that of US-FNAB. For combined biopsy, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were all 100%. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of combined biopsy were significantly higher than those of US-FNAB.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that US-CNB is more useful than US-FNAB, and that a combination of US-CNB and US-FNAB can markedly improve the preoperative diagnosis of breast cancer.