Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Superiority of Sonographic Hematoma Guided Resection of Mammogram Only Visible Breast Cancer: Wire Localization Should be an Exception—Not the Rule

  • Breast Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The goal of breast conservation in cancer treatment is to obtain adequate margins with minimum tissue loss to achieve acceptable oncologic and cosmetic outcome. The standard for resection of breast cancers visible only on mammogram is wire localization (WL), which has a high rate of positive margins. We hypothesized that sonographic hematoma guided (SHG) resection achieves better margin clearance while minimizing volume of resection by more accurate lesion localization.

Methods

This retrospective study was conducted at the University Comprehensive Breast Center. Consecutive patients over the span of one year, undergoing breast conservation for stereotactic biopsy proven cancers that were not visualized on ultrasound were studied. SHG and WL technique were compared for age, mammographic abnormality, and tumor characteristics. Outcome variables included closest margin of resection, volume of resection, resection index (resection volume/tumor volume), and rate of margin revision.

Results

Forty-five patients had SHG, while 51 had WL lumpectomy. The SHG and WL groups were similar in age, mammographic abnormality, tumor type, and stage. Median (25th–75th centile) tumor size was larger in SHG group vs WL group [1.2 (1.1–1.3) vs 0.8 (0.4–1.4) cm; P = .009]. Median (25th–75th centile) closest margin in SHG vs WL group was 5.0 (5.0–8.0) vs 4.0 (1.0–10) mm [P = .0041]. Median (25th–75th centile) resection volume in SHG vs WL group was 85.0 (60.0–128.0) vs 142.2 (54.4–229.0) cm3 [P = .0127]. Median (25th–75th centile) resection index in SHG vs WL group was 77.3 (59.3–285.7) vs 337.1 (88.9–3982.2) [P = .0004]. Margin was revised in 2 (4.4%) SHG vs 8 (15.7%) WL patients [P = .0978].

Conclusion

Sonographic hematoma guided lumpectomy is superior to wire localization in obtaining adequate margins with minimal volume of resection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

FIG. 1.
FIG. 2.
FIG. 3.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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):14–22

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Helvie MA, Ikeda DM, Adler DD. Localization and needle aspirations of breast lesions: complications in 370 cases. Am J Radiol 1991; 157(4):711–4

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Homer MJ. Transaction of the localization hooked wire during breast biopsy. Am J Radiol 1983; 141:929–30

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bristol JB, Jones PA. Transgression of localizing wire into the pleural cavity prior to mammography. Br J Radiol 1981; 54:139–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Davis PS, Wexhsler RJ, Feig SA, et al. Migration of breast biopsy localization wire. Am J Radiol 1988; 150:787–8

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Acosta JA, Greenlee JA. Surgical margins after needle localization breast biopsy. Am J Surg 1995; 170:643–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kaufman CS, Delbecq R, Jacobson L. Excising the reexcision: stereotactic core biopsy decreases the need for reexcision of breast cancer. World J Surg 1998; 22:1023–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Cangiarella J, Groos J, Symmans WF, et al. The incidence of positive margins with breast conserving therapy following mammotome biopsy for microcalcification. Surg Oncol 2000; 74:263–6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Thompson M, Henry-Tillman R, Margulies A, et al. Hematoma-Directed Ultrasound-Guided (HUG) Breast Lumpectomy. Ann Surg Onc 2007; 14(1):148–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wazer D, DiPetrillo T, Schmidt-Ullrich R, et al. Factors Influencing Cosmetic Outcome and Complication Risk after Conservative Surgery and Radiotherapy for Early-Stage Breast Carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 1992; 10(3):356–63

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Snider HC Jr, Morrison DG. Intraoperative ultrasound localization of nonpalpable breast lesions. Ann Surg Oncol 1999; 6(3):308–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rahusen FD, Taets van Amerongen AH, van Diest PJ, Borgstein PJ, Bleichrodt RP, Meijer S. Ultrasound-guided lumpectomy of nonpalpable breast cancer: a feasibility study looking at the accuracy of obtained margins. J Surg Oncol 1999; 72(2):72–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 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):241–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Rahusen FD, Bremers AJ, Fabry HF, van Amerongen AH, Boom RP, Meijer S. Ultrasound-guided lumpectomy of nonpalpable breast cancer versus wire-guided resection: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg Oncol 2002; 9(10):994–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Smith LF, Henry-Tillman R, Harms S, et al. Hematoma-directed ultrasound-guided breast biopsy. Ann Surg 2001; 233(5):669–75

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Smith LF, Henry-Tillman R, Rubio IT, Korourian S, Klimberg VS. Intraoperative localization after stereotactic biopsy without a needle. Am J Surg 2001; 182(6):584–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Paganelli G, Veronesi U. Innovation in early breast cancer surgery: radio-guided occult lesion localization and sentinel node biopsy. Nucl Med Commun 2002; 23:625–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Paganelli G, Luini A, Veronesi U. Radioguided occult lesion localization.(ROLL) in breast cancer: maximizing efficacy, minimizing mutilation. Ann Oncol 2002; 13(12):1839–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Gray RJ, Pockaj BA, Karstaedt PJ, Roarke MC. Radioactive seed localization of nonpalpable breast lesions is better than wire localization. Am J Surg 2004; 188:377–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Layeequr Rahman R, Arch Surg 2007; 142(4): 343–6

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kass R, Klimberg VS, Kass L, et al. Clip migration in stereotactic biopsy. Am J Surg 2002; 184(4):325–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Esserman LE, Cura MA, DaCosta D. Recognizing pitfalls in early and late migration of clip markers after image-guided directional vacuum-assisted biopsy. Radiographics 2004; 24(1):147–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Nurko J, Mancino AT, Whitacre E, Edwards MJ. Surgical benefits conveyed by biopsy site marking system using ultrasound localization. Am J Surg 2005; 190:618–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rose MA, Ollivotto I, Cady B, et al. Conservative surgery and radiation therapy for early breast cancer—long term cosmetic results. Arch Surg 1989; 124:153–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Beadle GF, Siver B, Botnick L, et al. Cosmetic results following primary radiation therapy for early breast cancer. Cancer 1984; 54:2911–19

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Audisio RA, Nadeem R, Thind R, Harris O, Desmond S, Chagla LS. Radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) for non-palbable breast lesions: the localization method of choice is now available in UK. Ann R Coll Surg Eng 2005; 87(2):92–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Olivotto I, Rose MA, Osteen RT, et al. Late cosmetic outcome after conservative surgery and radiotherapy: Analysis of causes of cosmetic failure. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1989; 17:747–53

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Taylor ME, Perez CA, Halverson KJ, et al. Factors influencing cosmetic results after conservation therapy for breast cancer. Int J Radiation Oncol Biol Phys 1995; 31(4):753–64

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UMass Memorial Health Care, Worcester, Massachussetts, USA

    Rakhshanda Layeequr Rahman MD, Sybil Crawford MD, Anne Larkin MD & Robert Quinlan MD

Authors
  1. Rakhshanda Layeequr Rahman MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sybil Crawford MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anne Larkin MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert Quinlan MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rakhshanda Layeequr Rahman MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Layeequr Rahman, R., Crawford, S., Larkin, A. et al. Superiority of Sonographic Hematoma Guided Resection of Mammogram Only Visible Breast Cancer: Wire Localization Should be an Exception—Not the Rule. Ann Surg Oncol 14, 2228–2232 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-007-9422-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-007-9422-8

Key Words

Search

Navigation