Case report of pseudoaneurysm caused by core needle biopsy of the breast.
ABSTRACT We treated a patient with a pseudoaneurysm caused by core needle biopsy (CNB), in which both the cancer and the aneurysm were excised by breast conservation therapy. A 51-year-old woman attended a local hospital because of a 25-mm mass in the upper outer quadrant of the right breast. CNB was performed, and brisk bleeding occurred at the biopsy site. Immediate hemostasis was achieved with direct manual compression. CNB detected fatty tissue, and a diagnosis could not be made. When she presented at our hospital 6 weeks later, there was a 25-mm pulsating mass at the biopsy site. Color-flow Doppler US and dynamic MRI showed a breast tumor and pseudoaneurysm formation. For the purpose of diagnosis and treatment of the breast tumor and pseudoaneurysm, lumpectomy of the right breast was performed. Histological diagnosis was papillotubular carcinoma and pseudoaneurysm. Although this condition is relatively rare, it is important to be aware of the possibility of complications, such as pseudoaneurysms, which require treatment.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Image guided large-core breast biopsies are commonly performed procedures with relatively rare complications. The majority of these complications are minor, though at times more significant vascular injuries can occur with these biopsies as demonstrated by this case. Patient developed a pulsatile vascular breast mass after an ultrasound guided breast biopsy of invasive ductal carcinoma. Sonographic evaluation of this new breast mass demonstrated this mass to represent an arteriovenous fistula (AVF). Though multiple therapies are available for an iatrogenic fistula within the breast, the AVF was surgically excised in this case as it was immediately adjacent to a known cancer.Journal of clinical imaging science. 01/2013; 3:38.
Article: Vitamin D, or wait and see?The Netherlands Journal of Medicine 08/2012; 70(6):292-3. · 2.38 Impact Factor
- The Netherlands Journal of Medicine 08/2012; 70(6):294. · 2.38 Impact Factor