Table 4.

Reported rates of DCIS underestimation after an ultrasound-guided 14-gauge core needle biopsy

Study	Target	Core needle size (G)	DCIS at CNB/total number of biopsied cases (%)	Total number underestimated (%)
Smith et al., 2001 [3]	Breast mass subtracting calcifications only	14	5/128 (1)	1/5 (20)
Schoonjans and Brem, 2001 [24]	Breast masses	14	9/424 (2.1)	5/9 (55.5)
Buchberger et al., 2002 [25]	Breast masses and calcifications	14	10/590 (1.7)	3/10 (30)
Philpotts et al., 2003 [23]	Breast lesions (primarily breast masses)	14	2/181 (1.1)	1/2 (50)
Pijnappel et al., 2004 [22]	Breast mass and calcifications only	14 or 18	8/128 (6.3)	5/8 (62.5)
Crystal et al., 2005 [21]	Breast masses	14	6/715 (0.8)	4/6 (66.7)
Sauer et al., 2005 [20]	Breast masses	14	19/962 (2.0)	11/19 (57.9)
Cho et al., 2005 [19]	Breast mass (n=551) and calcifications (n=11)	14	10/562 (1.8)	5/10 (50)
Youk et al., 2008 [26]	Breast masses subtracting calcifications only	14	126/2420 (5.2)	36/126 (29)
Schueller et al., 2008 [18]	Non-palpable breast masses	14	52/1,061 (4.9)	19/52 (36.5)
Current study	Breast mass subtracting calcifications only	14	69/3,124 (2.2)	21/69 (30.4)

DCIS, ductal carcinoma in situ; CNB, core needle biopsy; G, gauge.