Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Supine Breast MRI and 3D Optical Scanning: A Novel Approach to Improve Tumor Localization for Breast Conserving Surgery

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

Abstract

Background

Wire localization for excision of nonpalpable breast cancer is an inefficient and inexact technique.

Methods

A total of 18 women with palpable invasive breast cancers underwent preoperative prone and supine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Intraoperatively, the edges of the tumor were palpated and marked on the skin surface. The breast was optically scanned, and the supine MRI was adjusted to match the actual breast position at the time of surgery. Image-defined tumor edges were marked on the surface of the breast. The main outcome measure was the distance between the image-defined and palpation-defined edges of the tumor.

Results

No significant difference was found between the mean maximal tumor diameter as measured by histopathology (29.6 ± 14.3 mm), supine MRI (25.3 ± 9.7 mm), prone MRI (27.6 ± 13 mm), or palpation (30.5 ± 9.3 mm). The distance from the tumor to the chest wall was markedly different in prone versus supine MRI (56.4 ± 38 vs 19.5 ± 20 mm, p = .002). The average distance between the palpated and supine MRI image-defined tumor edge locations was 7.2 mm (range, 0–19 mm). Accuracy improved over time; the average difference in edge locations in the last 7 patients was 4.0 mm. All 4 image-defined edge locations in the last 5 patients were ≤1 cm away from the palpated locations.

Conclusions

We have developed a method of breast tumor localization using preoperative supine MRI and intraoperative optical scanning that defines tumor size and position as accurately as palpation.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Veronesi U, Boyle P, Goldhirsch A, Viale G. Breast cancer. Lancet. 2005;365:1727–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cangiarella J, Gross J, Symmans WF, Waisman J, Petersen B, D’Angelo D, et al. The incidence of positive margins with breast conserving therapy following mammotome biopsy for microcalcification. J Surg Oncol. 2000;74:263–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Harlow SP, Krag DN, Ames SE, Weaver DL. Intraoperative ultrasound localization to guide surgical excision of nonpalpable breast carcinoma. J Am Coll Surg. 1999;189:241–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rahusen F, Bremers A, Fabry H, 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;9:994–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kaufman CS, Jacobson L, Bachman B, Kaufman L. Intraoperative ultrasound facilitates surgery for early breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002;9:988–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Layeequr R, Crawford S, Larkin A, Quinlan R. Superiority of sonographic hematoma guided resection of mammogram only visible breast cancer: wire localization should be an exception—not the rule. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:2228–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, Carter WB, Bhargavan M, Lewis RS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology. 2004;233:830–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kristoffersen Wiberg M, Aspelin P, Sylvan M, Bone B. Comparison of lesion size estimated by dynamic MR imaging, mammography and histopathology in breast neoplasms. Eur Radiol. 2003;13:1207–12.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Boetes C, Mus R, Holland R, Barentsz JO, Strijk SP, Wobbes T, et al. Breast tumors: comparative accuracy of MR imaging relative to mammography and US for demonstrating extent. Radiology. 1995;197:743–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Davis P, Staiger M, Harris K, Ganott MA, Klementaviciene J, McCarty KS Jr, et al. Breast cancer measurements with MRI, ultrasonography and mammography. Breast Cancer Res. 1996;37:1–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Bedrosian I, Mick R, Orel SG, Schnall M, Reynolds C, Spitz FR, et al. Changes in the surgical management of patients with breast carcinoma based on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer. 2003;98:468–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Houssami N, Ciatto S, Macaskill P, Lord SJ, Warren RM, Dixon JM, et al. Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: Systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer. J ClinOncol. 2008;26:3248–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Schell AM, Rosenkranz K, Lewis PJ. Role of breast MRI in the preoperative evaluation of patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:1438–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Turnbull L, Brown S, Harvey I, Olivier C, Drew P, Napp V, et al. Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375:563–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sakakibara M, Nagashima T, Sangai T, Nakamura R, Fujimoto H, Arai M, et al. Breast-conserving surgery using projection and reproduction techniques of surgical-position breast MRI in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207:62–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Germano I. Advanced techniques in image-guided brain and spine surgery. New York: Thieme; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Herline AJ, Herring JL, Stefansic JD, Chapman WC, Galloway RL Jr, Dawant BM. Surface registration for use in interactive, image-guided liver surgery. Comput Aided Surg. 2000;5:11–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hill DLG and Batchelor P. Registration methodology: concepts and algorithms. In: Hajnal JV, Hawkes DJ, and Hill DLG, eds. Medical image registration. 1st ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2001:48.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Sorkine O. Least-squares rigid motion using SVD. Technical notes. 2009.

  21. McAuliffe MJ, Lalonde FM, McGarry D, Gandler W, Csaky K, Trus BL. Medical image processing, analysis and visualization in clinical research. In: Computer-based medical systems. 14th IEEE symposium (Bethesda, MD). 2001:381–6.

Download references

Acknowledgment

Supported by a Grant from the Dartmouth Center for Clinical and Translational Science to RJB.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard J. Barth Jr. MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pallone, M.J., Poplack, S.P., Avutu, H.B.R. et al. Supine Breast MRI and 3D Optical Scanning: A Novel Approach to Improve Tumor Localization for Breast Conserving Surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 21, 2203–2208 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-3598-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-3598-5

Keywords

Navigation