Advertisement

Virchows Archiv

, Volume 473, Issue 3, pp 285–291 | Cite as

Histological changes secondary to wire coil placement in breast tissue and lymph nodes

  • Ignacio Pinilla-Pagnon
  • Belén Pérez-Mies
  • María Eugenia Reguero
  • Marco-Tulio Martinez
  • Miguel Chiva
  • Silvia Pérez-Rodrigo
  • Odile Ajuria Illarramendi
  • Maria Eugenia Rioja Martin
  • Maria Vicenta Collado
  • Maria Concepción Sanchez
  • Juan Manuel Rosa-Rosa
  • José Palacios
Original Article
  • 312 Downloads

Abstract

We describe the histological and immunohistochemical features of the changes produced by spiral coil localization wires in the breast parenchyma and lymph nodes of a total of 100 patients undergoing surgery for different breast lesions. Coil wires produced cystic lesions containing a hyaline, mucous-like, PAS-negative fluid. Cavities were lined by cells of variable morphology ranging from synovial-like cells (with a conspicuous epithelial appearance) to mononuclear or multinucleate histiocytic cells that expressed CD68, but were negative for keratins. CD3-positive/CD8-positive T lymphocytes predominated in the inflammatory reaction. Pathologists should be aware of these changes in order to differentiate coil-related lesions from other granulomatous or epithelial lesions, including mucocele-like and ductal carcinoma in situ lesions.

Keywords

Spiral coil wire Histological breast changes Coil placement Breast lesions 

Notes

Funding information

This project was supported by grants from Instituto Carlos III (ISCIII) (PI16/00887, PT13/0010/0056, PIE15/00050) and CIBERONC (CB16/12/00316), co-financed by the European Development Regional Fund. ‘A way to achieve Europe’ (FEDER), by the AECC (AIO-AECC 2016), and by Fundació La Marató de TV3 (2/C2013). JMRR is a PhD investigator funded by ISCIII (CB16/12/00316).

Compliance with ethical standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Follacchio GA, Monteleone F, Anibaldi P, de Vincentis G, Iacobelli S, Merola R, D’Orazi V, Monti M, Pasta V (2015) A modified sentinel node and occult lesion localization (SNOLL) technique in non-palpable breast cancer: a pilot study. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 34:113CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Krug KB, Ulhaas A, Hellmich M, Schwabe H, Krämer S, Malter W, Müller D, Markiefka B, Maintz D (2013) Impact of clinical and lesion characteristics on the results of MR-guided wire localizations of the breast using an open 1.0-T MRI system. Investig Radiol 48(6):445–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dal F, Ökmen H, Yılmaz MK et al (2017) Extraction of a foreign body from the breast using radio-guided occult lesion localization (ROLL): metallic foreign body in the breast. Eur J Breast Health 13(3):159–160CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Demiral G, Senol M, Bayraktar B, Ozturk H, Celik Y, Boluk S (2016) Diagnostic value of hook wire localization technique for non-palpable breast lesions. J Clin Med Res 8(5):389–395CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thomassin-Naggara LL, David J et al (2012) A plea for the biopsy marker: how, why and why not clipping after breast biopsy? Breast Cancer Res Treat 132:881–893CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dash N, Chafin SH, Johnson RR. et al. Usefulness of tissue marker clips in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer AJ R Am J Roentgenol 1999; 173 (4): 120–122Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sakamoto N, Ogawa Y, Tsunoda Y, Fukuma E (2017) Evaluation of the sonographic visibility and sonographic appearance of the breast biopsy marker (UltraClip(R)) placed in phantoms and patients. Breast Cancer 24(4):585–592CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Klein R, Mook JA, Euhus DM et al (2012) Evaluation of a hydrogel based breast biopsy marker (HydroMARK(R)) as an alternative to wire and radioactive seed localization for non-palpable breast lesions. J Surg Oncol 105(6):591–594CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Blumencranz PW, Ellis D, Barlowe K (2014) Use of hydrogel breast biopsy tissue markers reduces the need for wire localization. Ann Surg Oncol 21(10):3273–3277CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pinkney DM, Shah B (2013) Prospective comparative study to evaluate the sonographic visibility of five commercially available breast biopsy markers. J Diagn Med Sonogr 29(4):151–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Velazco CS, Wasif N, Pockaj BA, Gray RJ (2017) Radioactive seed localization for breast conservation surgery: low positive margin rate with no learning curve. Am J Surg 214(6):1091–1093CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhang Y, Seely J, Cordeiro E, Hefler J, Thavorn K, Mahajan M, Domina S, Aro J, Ibrahim AM, Arnaout A, Gravel D, Nessim C (2017) Radioactive seed localization versus wire-guided localization for nonpalpable breast cancer: a cost and operating room efficiency analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 24(12):3567–3573CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tran VT, David J, Patocskai E, Zummo-Soucy M, Younan R, Lalonde L, Labelle M, el Khoury M, Robidoux A, Trop I (2017) Comparative evaluation of Iodine-125 radioactive seed localization and wire localization for resection of breast lesions. Can Assoc Radiol J 68(4):447–455CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gentile LF, Himmler A, Shaw CM, Bouton A, Vorhis E, Marshall J, Spiguel LRP (2016) Ultrasound-guided segmental mastectomy and excisional biopsy using hydrogel-encapsulated clip localization as an alternative to wire localization. Ann Surg Oncol 23(10):3284–3289CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Torous VF, Schnitt SJ, Collins LC (2017) Benign breast lesions that mimic malignancy. Pathology 49(2):181–196CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oh JH, Song SY, Lew DH, Lee DW (2016) Distant migration of multiple siliconomas in lower extremities following breast implant rupture: case report. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 4(10):e1011CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fidalgo Garcia M, Riaño Molleda M, Hernanz de la Fuente F et al (2014) Infiltration of an axillary lymph node by silicone from a ruptured breast prosthesis. Cir Esp 92(2):e7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chase DR, Oberg KC, Chase RL, Mallot RL, Weeks DA (1996) Silicone breakdown and capsular synovial metaplasia in textured-wall saline breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 97(1):249CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cheng J, Ding HY, DU YT (2013) Granulomatous lobular mastitis associated with mammary duct ectasia: a clinicopathologic study of 32 cases with review of literature. Zhonghua Bing Li Xue Za Zhi 42(10):665–668PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Meares AL, Frank RD, Degnim AC, Vierkant RA, Frost MH, Hartmann LC, Winham SJ, Visscher DW (2016) Mucocele-like lesions of the breast: a clinical outcome and histologic analysis of 102 cases. Hum Pathol 49:33–38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhang G, Ataya D, L Lebda P et al (2017) Mucocele-like lesions diagnosed on breast core biopsy: low risk of upgrade and subsequent carcinoma. Breast J 24:314–318.  https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12929 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ha D, Dialani V, Mehta TS, Keefe W, Iuanow E, Slanetz PJ (2015) Mucocele-like lesions in the breast diagnosed with percutaneous biopsy: is surgical excision necessary? AJR Am J Roentgenol 204(1):204–210CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Layfield LJ, Frazier S, Schanzmeyer E et al (2015) Histomorphologic features of biopsy sites following excisional and core needle biopsies of the breast. Breast J 21(4):370–376CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tramm T, Kim JY, Tavassoli FA et al (2011) Diminished number or complete loss of myoepithelial cells associated with metaplastic and neoplastic apocrine lesions of the breast. Am J Surg Pathol 35(2):202–211CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tavassoli F (1999) Benign lesions. In: F. Tavassoli, (ed) Pathology of the breast, 2nd ed. Stamford, Connecticut: Appleton & Lange, pp.187–188Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ignacio Pinilla-Pagnon
    • 1
  • Belén Pérez-Mies
    • 1
    • 2
  • María Eugenia Reguero
    • 1
    • 2
  • Marco-Tulio Martinez
    • 1
  • Miguel Chiva
    • 2
    • 3
  • Silvia Pérez-Rodrigo
    • 2
    • 3
  • Odile Ajuria Illarramendi
    • 4
  • Maria Eugenia Rioja Martin
    • 2
    • 4
  • Maria Vicenta Collado
    • 2
    • 5
  • Maria Concepción Sanchez
    • 2
    • 6
  • Juan Manuel Rosa-Rosa
    • 7
  • José Palacios
    • 1
    • 2
    • 7
    • 8
    • 9
  1. 1.Pathology DepartmentHospital Universitario Ramón y CajalMadridSpain
  2. 2.Breast Pathology UnitHospital Universitario Ramón y CajalMadridSpain
  3. 3.Radiology DepartmentHospital Universitario Ramón y CajalMadridSpain
  4. 4.Nuclear Medicine DepartmentHospital Universitario Ramón y CajalMadridSpain
  5. 5.General Surgery DepartmentHospital Universitario Ramón y CajalMadridSpain
  6. 6.Obstetrics and Gynecology DepartmentHospital Universitario Ramón y CajalMadridSpain
  7. 7.Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer (CIBERONC)Instituto de Salud Carlos IIIMadridSpain
  8. 8.IRyCIS, Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación SanitariaHospital Universitario Ramón y CajalMadridSpain
  9. 9.Universidad de Alcalá de HenaresMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations