Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Localizing High-Risk Lesions for Excisional Breast Biopsy: A Comparison Between Radioactive Seed Localization and Wire Localization

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

Abstract

Background

Improved resolution and utilization of screening breast imaging has increased identification of nonpalpable high-risk lesions (HRL) and subsequent excisional breast biopsies (EBBs). Wire localization (WL), used most commonly for EBBs, may have shortcomings, including wire displacement, patient discomfort, limitations with incision planning and scheduling logistics. Radioactive seed localization (RSL) may overcome these drawbacks. The purpose of this study was to compare WL and RSL for EBBs for HRLs.

Methods

All single-site EBBs for HRL performed by four breast surgeons were retrospectively reviewed over two consecutive 1-year periods. Patients with cancer on percutaneous core biopsy (CB) were excluded. Clinicopathologic information, operative time, targeted lesion retrieval rate, and upstage rate were collected.

Results

A total of 324 EBBs for HRL were performed: 196 using WL and 128 using RSL. CB pathology was atypical hyperplasia in 56 % of WLs and 62 % of RSLs. The remaining pathologies were radial scar, papilloma, atypical papilloma or lobular carcinoma in situ. Mean age was 54 years. OR time was 27 ± 8 min for WL and 27 ± 7 min for RSL (p = 0.9). Upstage rate was 6 and 5 % for WLs and RSLs, respectively (p = 0.5). Targeted lesions were retrieved in 98 % of WL and 99 % of RSL (p = 0.5). SV was 37.2 ± 32.8 cm3 and 25.7 ± 22.3 cm3 for WL and RSL, respectively (p = 0.001).

Conclusions

RSL is comparable to WL for EBB of HRLs with similar OR times and upstage rates. SV is significantly decreased with RSL and may translate into improved cosmetic outcomes without sacrificing the diagnostic accuracy of the EBB.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Garcia EM, Storm ES, Atkinson L, Kenny E, Mitchell LS. Current breast imaging modalities, advances, and impact on breast care. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 2013;40(3):429–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. White RR, Halperin TJ, Olson JA Jr, Soo MS, Bentley RC, Seigler HF. Impact of core-needle breast biopsy on the surgical management of mammographic abnormalities. Ann Surg. 2001;233(6):769–777.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Hall FM, Frank HA. Preoperative localization of nonpalpable breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1979;132(1):101–105.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hall FM, Kopans DB, Sadowsky NL, Homer MJ. Development of wire localization for occult breast lesions: Boston remembrances. Radiology. 2013;268(3):622–627.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Homer MJ, Pile-Spellman ER. Needle localization of occult breast lesions with a curved-end retractable wire: technique and pitfalls. Radiology. 1986;161(2):547–548.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Yagan R. Needle localization of occult breast lesions with a curved-end retractable wire: techniques and pitfalls. Radiology. 1987;163(1):284.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hughes JH, Mason MC, Gray RJ, et al. A multi-site validation trial of radioactive seed localization as an alternative to wire localization. Breast J. 2008;14(2):153–157.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Klein RL, Mook JA, Euhus DM, et al. 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. 2012;105(6):591–594.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Postma EL, Witkamp AJ, van den Bosch MA, Verkooijen HM, van Hillegersberg R. Localization of nonpalpable breast lesions. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2011;11(8):1295–1302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sajid MS, Parampalli U, Haider Z, Bonomi R. Comparison of radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) and wire localization for non-palpable breast cancers: a meta-analysis. J Surg Oncol. 2012;105(8):852–858.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Jakub JW, Gray RJ, Degnim AC, Boughey JC, Gardner M, Cox CE. Current status of radioactive seed for localization of non palpable breast lesions. Am J Surg. 2010;199(4):522–528.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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):711–715.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. McGhan LJ, McKeever SC, Pockaj BA, et al. Radioactive seed localization for nonpalpable breast lesions: review of 1,000 consecutive procedures at a single institution. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(11):3096–3101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Alderliesten T, Loo CE, Pengel KE, Rutgers EJ, Gilhuijs KG, Vrancken Peeters MJ. Radioactive seed localization of breast lesions: an adequate localization method without seed migration. Breast J. 2011;17(6):594–601.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Barentsz MW, van den Bosch MA, Veldhuis WB, et al. Radioactive seed localization for non-palpable breast cancer. Br J Surg. 2013;100(5):582–588.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Gobardhan PD, de Wall LL, van der Laan L, et al. The role of radioactive iodine-125 seed localization in breast-conserving therapy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(3):668–673.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Gray RJ, Giuliano R, Dauway EL, Cox CE, Reintgen DS. Radioguidance for nonpalpable primary lesions and sentinel lymph node(s). Am J Surg. 2001;182(4):404–406.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Lovrics PJ, Goldsmith CH, Hodgson N, et al. A multicentered, randomized, controlled trial comparing radioguided seed localization to standard wire localization for nonpalpable, invasive and in situ breast carcinomas. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(12):3407–3414.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Barnes G, Jr., Matory WE. Needle localization and surgical management of occult breast lesions. J Natl Med Assoc. 1989;81(6):633–636.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Snell MJ, Ostrow LB, DuBois JJ, Boyle LM, Calfee LW. Needle-localized biopsy of occult breast lesions: an update. Mil Med. 1992;157(2):61–64.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Part 20- standards for protection against radiation. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/part020-1201.html (1991). Accessed 2 April 2014.

  22. Rao R, Moldrem A, Sarode V, et al. Experience with seed localization for nonpalpable breast lesions in a public health care system. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010; 17(12):3241–3246.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Murphy JO, Moo TA, King TA, et al. Radioactive seed localization compared to wire localization in breast-conserving surgery: initial 6-month experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(13):4121–4127.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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(4):377.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The authors thank Cindy Steiner, MS, Medical Health Physicists, Radiation Safety Office, University of Pittsburgh and Michael Sheetz, MS, CHP, DABMP, Radiation Safety Officer, Clinical Assistant Professor of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, for their data on radiation exposure for the surgeons.

Disclosure

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Magee Womens Hospital of UPMC, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Emilia J. Diego MD, Atilla Soran MD, MPH, Kandace P. McGuire MD, Ronald R. Johnson MD, Marguerite Bonaventura MD, Gretchen M. Ahrendt MD & Priscilla F. McAuliffe MD, PhD

  2. Department of Surgery, Garden City Hospital, Garden City, MI, USA

    Corinne Costellic MD

Authors
  1. Emilia J. Diego MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Atilla Soran MD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kandace P. McGuire MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Corinne Costellic MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ronald R. Johnson MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marguerite Bonaventura MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Gretchen M. Ahrendt MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Priscilla F. McAuliffe MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emilia J. Diego MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Diego, E.J., Soran, A., McGuire, K.P. et al. Localizing High-Risk Lesions for Excisional Breast Biopsy: A Comparison Between Radioactive Seed Localization and Wire Localization. Ann Surg Oncol 21, 3268–3272 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-3912-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-014-3912-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation