Advertisement

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 155, Issue 3, pp 513–519 | Cite as

Comparison of intra-operative specimen mammography to standard specimen mammography for excision of non-palpable breast lesions: a randomized trial

  • Cynthia L. Miller
  • Suzanne B. Coopey
  • Elizabeth Rafferty
  • Michele Gadd
  • Barbara L. Smith
  • Michelle C. SpechtEmail author
Clinical trial

Abstract

Standard specimen mammography (SSM) is performed in the radiology department after wire-localized excision of non-palpable breast lesions to confirm the presence of the target and evaluate margins. Alternatively, intra-operative specimen mammography (ISM) allows surgeons to view images in the operating room (OR). We conducted a randomized study comparing ISM and SSM. Women undergoing wire-localized excision for breast malignancy or imaging abnormality were randomized to SSM or ISM. For SSM, the specimen was transported to the radiology department for imaging and interpretation. For ISM, the specimen was imaged in the OR for interpretation by the surgeon and sent for SSM. Interpretation time was from specimen leaving OR until radiologist interpretation for SSM and from placement in ISM device until surgeon interpretation for ISM. Procedure and interpretation times were compared. Concordance between ISM and SSM for target and margins was evaluated. 72 patients were randomized, 36 ISM and 36 SSM. Median procedure times were similar, 48.5 (17–138) min for ISM, and 54 (17–40) min for SSM (p = 0.72), likely since specimens in both groups traveled to radiology for SSM. Median interpretation time was significantly shorter with ISM, 1 (0.5–2.0) and 9 (4–16) min for ISM and SSM, respectively (p < 0.0001). Among specimens with ISM and SSM, concordance was 100 % (35/35) for target and 93 % (14/15) for margins. In this randomized trial, use of ISM compared with SSM significantly reduced interpretation times, while accurately identifying the target. This could result in decreased operative costs from shorter OR times with use of ISM.

Keywords

Mammography Wire localization Lumpectomy Intra-operative imaging 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest or financial disclosures to report.

References

  1. 1.
    Hall FM, Frank HA (1979) Preoperative localization of nonpalpable breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 132(1):101–105. doi: 10.2214/ajr.132.1.101 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    della Rovere GQ, Benson JR, Morgan M, Warren R, Patel A (1996) Localization of impalpable breast lesions–a surgical approach. Eur J Surg Oncol 22(5):478–482CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Silverstein MJ, Gamagami P, Rosser RJ, Gierson ED, Colburn WJ, Handel N, Fingerhut AG, Lewinsky BS, Hoffman RS, Waisman JR (1987) Hooked-wire-directed breast biopsy and overpenetrated mammography. Cancer 59(4):715–722CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Besic N, Zgajnar J, Hocevar M, Rener M, Frkovic-Grazio S, Snoj N, Lindtner J (2002) Breast biopsy with wire localization: factors influencing complete excision of nonpalpable carcinoma. Eur Radiol 12(11):2684–2689. doi: 10.1007/s00330-002-1331-4 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kaufman CS, Jacobson L, Bachman BA, Kaufman LB, Mahon C, Gambrell LJ, Seymour R, Briscoe J, Aulisio K, Cunningham A, Opstad F, Schnell N, Robertson J, Oliver L (2007) Intraoperative digital specimen mammography: rapid, accurate results expedite surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 14(4):1478–1485. doi: 10.1245/s10434-006-9126-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Camp MS, Valero MG, Opara N, Benabou K, Cutone L, Caragacianu D, Dominici L, Golshan M (2013) Intraoperative digital specimen mammography: a significant improvement in operative efficiency. Am J Surg 206(4):526–529. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2013.01.046 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Muttalib M, Tisdall M, Scawn R, Shousha S, Cummins RS, Sinnett HD (2004) Intra-operative specimen analysis using faxitron microradiography for excision of mammographically suspicious, non-palpable breast lesions. Breast 13(4):307–315. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2004.02.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bathla L, Harris A, Davey M, Sharma P, Silva E (2011) High resolution intra-operative two-dimensional specimen mammography and its impact on second operation for re-excision of positive margins at final pathology after breast conservation surgery. Am J Surg 202(4):387–394. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2010.09.031 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim SH, Cornacchi SD, Heller B, Farrokhyar F, Babra M, Lovrics PJ (2013) An evaluation of intraoperative digital specimen mammography versus conventional specimen radiography for the excision of nonpalpable breast lesions. Am J Surg 205(6):703–710. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2012.08.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wang Y, Ebuoma L, Saksena M, Liu B, Specht M, Rafferty E (2014) Clinical evaluation of a mobile digital specimen radiography system for intraoperative specimen verification. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203(2):457–462. doi: 10.2214/AJR.13.11408 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Muttalib M, Sinnett HD (2006) Re: Power et al. needle-localised biopsy of impalpable breast lesions: a novel adjunct to surgical technique and specimen mammography. Surg J R Coll Surg Edinb Irel 2004; 2(6): 343–345. Surg J R Coll Surg Edinb Irel 4(1):60Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Coombs NJ, Vassallo PP, Parker AJ, Yiangou C (2006) Radiological review of specimen radiographs after breast localisation biopsy is not always necessary. Eur J Surg Oncol 32(5):516–519. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2006.02.019 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Graham RA, Homer MJ, Sigler CJ, Safaii H, Schmid CH, Marchant DJ, Smith TJ (1994) The efficacy of specimen radiography in evaluating the surgical margins of impalpable breast carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 162(1):33–36. doi: 10.2214/ajr.162.1.8273685 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cynthia L. Miller
    • 1
  • Suzanne B. Coopey
    • 2
  • Elizabeth Rafferty
    • 3
  • Michele Gadd
    • 2
  • Barbara L. Smith
    • 2
  • Michelle C. Specht
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Surgical OncologyMassachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyMassachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations