Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 148–156 | Cite as

Hematoma-Directed Ultrasound-Guided (HUG) Breast Lumpectomy

  • Margaret Thompson
  • Ronda Henry-Tillman
  • Aaron Margulies
  • Jeff Thostenson
  • Gwen Bryant-Smith
  • Robert Fincher
  • Soheila Korourian
  • V Suzanne KlimbergEmail author
Article

Abstracts

Background

Needle localization breast biopsy (NLBB) is presently the primary means of localizing non-palpable lesions. Disadvantages of NLBB include vasovagal episodes, patient discomfort, and miss rates. Because hematomas naturally fill the cavity after vacuum-assisted breast biopsies (VABB), we hypothesized that ultrasound (US) could be used to find and accurately excise the actual biopsy site of non-palpable breast lesions without a needle.

Methods

This is a retrospective study from January 2000 to July 2005. Electronic chart review identified patients with non-palpable breast lesions detected by means of mammogram who then underwent lumpectomy via NLBB or the hematoma-directed ultrasound-guided technique (HUG). HUG involved localizing the hematoma with a 7.5-MHz US probe and using the “line of sight” technique straight down toward the chest wall. A block of tissue encompassing the hematoma was then excised.

Results

Localization procedures were performed in 186 patients—63 (34%) via needle localization and 123 (66%) via HUG. The previous VABB site in 100% of patients was successfully excised using HUG, 65 of 123 (53%) were benign and 58 of 123 (47%) were malignant; margins were positive in 13 of these 58 (22%). NLBB was successful in 100% of patients, 44 of 63 (70%) were benign and 19 of 63 (30%) were malignant; margins were positive in 14 of these 19 (73%). Margin positivity was significantly higher for NLBB than HUG (P = 0.0001, Fisher Exact).

Conclusions

This study suggests that HUG is more accurate in localizing non-palpable lesions than NLBB. By eliminating the additional procedure needed for NLBB, HUG may also be more time- and cost efficient. HUG makes VABB not only a less invasive diagnostic procedure, but also a localization procedure.

Key Words

Breast Hematoma Ultrasound Biopsy Lumpectomy 

Reference

  1. 1.
    Burns R. Image-guided breast biopsy. Am J Surg 1997; 173:9–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Potterton AJ, Peakman DJ, Young JR. Ultrasound demonstration of small breast cancers detected by mammographic screening. Clin Radiol 1994; 49(11):808–813PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Smith LF, Henry-Tillman R, Rubio IT, Korourian S, Klimberg VS. Intraoperative localization after stereotactic breast biopsy without a needle. Am J Surg 2001; 182(6):584–589PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rissanen TJ, Makarainen HP, Mattila SI, et al. Wire localized biopsy of breast lesions: A review of 425 cases found in screening or clinical mammography. Clin Radiol 1993; 47(1):14–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hasselgren PO, Hummel RP, Georgian-Smith D, Fieler M. Breast biopsy with needle localization: accuracy of specimen x-ray and management of missed lesions. Surgery 1993; 114(4):836–840; discussion 840–842PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Homer MJ, Smith TJ, Safaii H. Prebiopsy needle localization. methods, problems, and expected results. Radiol Clin North Am 1992; 30(1):139–153Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Snider HC, Jr, Morrison DG. Intraoperative ultrasound localization of nonpalpable breast lesions. Ann Surg Oncol 1999; 6(3):308–314PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Burbank F, Forcier N. Tissue marking clip for stereotactic breast biopsy: initial placement accuracy, long-term stability, and usefulness as a guide for wire localization. Radiology 1997; 205(2):407–415PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liberman L, Dershaw DD, Morris EA, Abramson AF, Thornton CM, Rosen PP. Clip placement after stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Radiology 1997; 205(2):417–422PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fajardo LL, Bird RE, Herman CR, DeAngelis GA. Placement of endovascular embolization microcoils to localize the site of breast lesions removed at stereotactic core biopsy. Radiology 1998; 206(1):275–278PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gray RJ, Salud C, Nguyen K, et al. Randomized prospective evaluation of a novel technique for biopsy or lumpectomy of nonpalpable breast lesions: radioactive seed versus wire localization. Ann Surg Oncol 2001; 8(9):711–715PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Children’s Mercy hospitals and clinics, STATS: Steve’s Attempt to Teach Statistics.http://www.cmh.edu/stats/ask/fishers.asp
  13. 13.
    Parker SH, Lovin JD, Jobe WE, et al. Stereotactic breast biopsy with a biopsy gun. Radiology 1990; 176(3):741–747PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee CH, Egglin TK, Philpotts L, Mainiero MB, Tocino I. Cost-effectiveness of stereotactic core needle biopsy: analysis by means of mammographic findings. Radiology 1997; 202(3):849–854PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liberman L, Dershaw DD, Morris EA, Abramson AF, Thornton CM, Rosen PP. Clip placement after stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Radiology 1997; 205(2):417–422PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Israel PZ, Fine RE. Stereotactic needle biopsy for occult breast lesions: a minimally invasive alternative. Am Surg 1995; 61:87–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Velanovich V, Lewis FR, Jr, Nathanson SD, et al. Comparison of mammographically guided breast biopsy techniques. Ann Surg 1999; 229:625–630; discussion 630–633PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fuhrman GM, Cederbom GJ, Bolton JS, et al. Image-guided core-needle breast biopsy is an accurate technique to evaluate patients with nonpalpable imaging abnormalities. Ann Surg 1998; 227:932–939PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Meyer JE, Smith DN, Lester SC, et al. Large-core needle biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions. JAMA 1999; 281:1638–1641PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yim JH, Barton P, Weber B, et al. Mammographically detected breast cancer. Benefits of stereotactic core versus wire localization biopsy. Ann Surg 1996; 223(6):688–697; discussion 697–700Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bassett L, Winchester DP, Caplan RB, et al. Stereotactic core-needle biopsy of the breast: a report of the joint task force of the American College of Radiology, American College of Surgeons, and College of American Pathologists. CA Cancer J Clin 1997; 47(3):171–190PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Smith LF, Rubio IT, Henry-Tillman R, Korourian S, Klimberg VS. Intraoperative ultrasound-guided breast biopsy. Am J Surg 2000; 180(6):419–423PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schwartz GF, Goldberg BB, Rifkin MD, D’Orazio SE. Ultrasonography: an alternative to x-ray-guided needle localization of nonpalpable breast masses. Surgery 1988; 104(5):870–873PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Harlow SP, Krag DN, Ames SE, Weaver DL. Intraoperative ultrasound localization to guide surgical excision of nonpalpable breast carcinoma. J Am Coll Surg 1999; 189(3):241–246PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rubio IT, Henry-Tillman R, Klimberg VS. Surgical use of breast ultrasound. Surg Clin North Am 2003; 83(4):771–788PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Henry-Tillman R, Johnson AT, Smith LF, Klimberg VS. Intraoperative ultrasound and other techniques to achieve negative margins. Semin Surg Oncol 2001; 20(3):206–213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Klimberg VS, Harms S, Korourian S. Assessing margin status. Surg Oncol 1999; 8(2):77–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pezner RD, Lipsett JA, Desai K, et al. To boost or not to boost: decreasing radiation therapy in conservative breast cancer treatment when “inked” tumor resection margins are pathologically free of cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1988; 14(5):873–877PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Spivack B, Khanna MM, Tafra L, Juillard G, Giuliano AE. Margin status and local recurrence after breast-conserving surgery. Arch Surg 1994; 129(9):952–956; discussion 956–957PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Freedman G, Fowble B, Hanlon A, et al. Patients with early stage invasive cancer with close or positive margins treated with conservative surgery and radiation have an increased risk of breast recurrence that is delayed by adjuvant systemic therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999; 44(5):1005–1015PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Park CC, Mitsumori M, Nixon A, et al. Outcome at 8 years after breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy for invasive breast cancer: influence of margin status and systemic therapy on local recurrence. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18(8):1668–1675PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fortin A, Larochelle M, Laverdiere J, Lavertu S, Tremblay D. Local failure is responsible for the decrease in survival for patients with breast cancer treated with conservative surgery and postoperative radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17(1):101–109PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Singletary SE. Surgical margins in patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast conservation therapy. Am J Surg 2002; 184(5):383–393PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Swanson GP, Rynearson K, Symmonds R. Significance of margins of excision on breast cancer recurrence. Am J Clin Oncol 2002; 25(5):438–441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lechner M, Day D, Elvecrog EL, et al. Ultrasound visibility of a new biopsy marker on serial evaluations. Radiology 2002; 225:115Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Birdwell RL, Jackman RJ. Clip or marker migration 5–10 weeks after stereotactic 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: report of two cases. Radiology 2003; 29(2):541–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Parikh JR. Ultrasound demonstration of clip migration to skin within 6 weeks of 11-gauge vacuum-assisted stereotactic breast biopsy. Breast J 2004; 0(6):539–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Burnside ES, Sohlich RE, Sickles EA. Movement of a biopsy-site marker clip after completion of stereotactic directional vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: case report. Radiology 2001; 21(2):504–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Philpotts LE, Lee CH. Clip migration after 11-gauge vacuum-assisted stereotactic biopsy: case report. Radiology 2002; 22(3):794–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Harris AT. Clip migration within 8 days of 11-gauge vacuum-assisted stereotactic breast biopsy: case report. Radiology 2003; 28(2):552–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Parikh JR. Clip migration within 15 days of 11-gauge vacuum-assisted stereotactic breast biopsy: case report. Am J Roentgenol 2005; 84(3 Suppl):S43–46Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Parikh JR. Delayed migration of Gel Mark Ultra Clip within 15 days of 11-gauge vacuum-assisted stereotactic breast biopsy. Am J Roentgenol 2005; 85(1):203–206Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Nurko J, Mancino AT, Whitacre E, Edwards MJ. Surgical benefits conveyed by biopsy site marking system using ultrasound localization. Am J Surg 2005; 190(4):618–622PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mullen DJ, Eisen RN, Newman RD, Perrone PM, Wilsey JC. The use of carbon marking after stereotactic large-core-needle breast biopsy. Radiology 2001; 218(1):255–260PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gray RJ, Salud C, Nguyen K, et al. Randomized prospective evaluation of a novel technique for biopsy or lumpectomy of nonpalpable breast lesions: radioactive seed versus wire localization. Ann Surg Oncol 2001; 8(9):711–715PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kass R, Kumar G, Klimberg VS, et al. Clip migration in stereotactic biopsy. Am J Surg 2002; 184(4):325–331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gennari R, Galimberti V, De Cicco C, et al. Use of technetium-99m-labeled colloid albumin for preoperative and intraoperative localization of nonpalpable breast lesions. J Am Coll Surg 2000; 190(6):692–698; discussion 698–699PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Thind CR, Desmond S, Harris O, Nadeem R, Chagla LS, Audisio RA. Radio-guided localization of clinically occult breast lesions (ROLL): a DGH experience. Clin Radiol 2005; 60(6):681–686PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zgajnar J, Hocevar M, Frkovic-Grazio S, Hertl K, Schweiger E, Besic N. Radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) of the nonpalpable breast lesions. Neoplasma 2004; 51(5):385–389PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Margaret Thompson
    • 1
  • Ronda Henry-Tillman
    • 1
  • Aaron Margulies
    • 1
  • Jeff Thostenson
    • 2
  • Gwen Bryant-Smith
    • 3
  • Robert Fincher
    • 3
  • Soheila Korourian
    • 4
  • V Suzanne Klimberg
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.Division of Breast Surgical Oncology, Department of SurgeryUniversity of Arkansas for Medical SciencesLittle RockUnited States
  2. 2.Department of BiostatisticsUniversity of Arkansas for Medical SciencesLittle RockUnited States
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Arkansas for Medical SciencesLittle RockUnited States
  4. 4.Department of PathologyUniversity of Arkansas for Medical SciencesLittle RockUnited States

Personalised recommendations