Lobar Resection Under Ultrasound Guide

  • Enzo DuranteEmail author


In this chapter, we reported the experience of more than 40 years of use of interventional procedures guided by ultrasound which started in 1974 and stressed for surgical procedures considering the ultrasonic transducer as the third hand of the surgeon. The principle of breast surgical resection is based on the concept that the breast is not one gland but many, each with its own central milk-collecting duct in the nipple and several orders of branching tributary ducts draining the secretory glandular tissue. Each of the major ducts represents the anatomical element of every single breast lobe surgically identified as sector or segment; breast lobes are 15–20 as many as the ducts and that breast diseases are diseases of the epithelium of the ducts and finally a lobar disease (Townsend and Craig, Clin Symp 32(2): 1–30, 1980).

Consequently, understanding the need to strictly follow the lobar anatomy of the breast during the surgery and understanding the lobar nature of breast carcinoma, we started to systematically perform ultrasound examination in a radial and antiradial fashion before each operation in order to visualize the ductal system along the major axis and, using a special draft, indicating every lesion in clockwise fashion with all parameters achievable by ultrasound (Amy et al., J Med Ultrasonics 42:331–339, 2015; Amy, Breast cancer, a lobar disease. New York, NY: Springer, 2011; Jellins et al., Med J Aust 1:305, 1971; Jellins et al., Ultrasound Med Biol 1:393–404, 1975; Kikuchi et al., J Acoust Soc Am 29(7):824–833, 1957; Kobayashi, Japan J Clin Oncol 4(2): 145–158, 1974; Wild and Neal, Lancet 1:655–657, 1951; Wild and Reid, Am J Pathol 28:839–861, 1952).

The advances made in high-frequency ultrasound transducer technology have led to considerable improvements in two-dimensional and three-dimensional grayscale imaging of the breast allowing a well-defined anatomy and pathology and numerous parameters for an adequate staging and correct selection for more convenient surgical procedure oncologically radical, and anatomically correct. The experience of the author is based on 1582 cases from 1988 to 2010 with a follow-up from 6 to 28 years. Surgical planning with ultrasound involves drawing on the skin the extent of resection, according to the lobar anatomy, and deciding on the most advantageous incision using the Langer’s lines. Parameters used to plan surgery are the site of tumor, its dimensions, breast thickness, and the distances from the skin, fascia, and nipple. Ultrasound examination of the excised specimen allows the surgeon to assess the completeness of excision by measuring the distances between the lesion and antiradial margins. Experience suggests that surgeon-performed intraoperative ultrasound is a cost-effective and practical procedure.


Lobar anatomy Lobe Sick lobe Ducts Radial scanning Staging Clockwise fashion Surgery of organ Image-guided surgery Lobar resection ultrasonically guided Intraoperative ultrasound Lumpectomy Margins Recurrence 


  1. 1.
    Akashi-Tanaka S, Sato N, Ohsumi S, et al. Evaluation of the usefulness of breast CT imaging in delineating tumor extent and guiding surgical management: a prospective multi-institutional study. Ann Surg. 2012;256(1):157–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Akashi-Tanaka S. Preoperative CT evaluation of intraductal spread of breast cancer and surgical treatment. Breast Cancer. 2013;20(1):21–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amy D, Durante E, Tot T. The lobar approach to breast ultrasound imaging and surgery. J Med Ultrasonics. 2015;42:331–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amy D. Lobar ultrasound of the breast. In: Tot T, editor. Breast cancer, a lobar disease. New York, NY: Springer; 2011. p. 153–62.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Anscher MS, Jones P, Prosnitz LR, et al. Local failure and margin status in early stage breast carcinoma treated with conservation surgery and radiation therapy. Ann Surg. 1993;218:22–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bennett IC, Greenslade J, Chiam H. Intraoperative ultrasound guided excision of nonpalpable breast lesions. World J Surg. 2005;29:369–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bolger JC, Solon JG, Power C, et al. Analysis of margin index as a method for predicting residual disease after breast-conserving surgery in a European Cancer Center. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:207–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Caughran JL, Vicini FA, Kestin LL, et al. Optimal use of re-excision in patients diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer by excisional biopsy treated with breast-conserving therapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:3020–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chagpar AB, Martin RCG, Hagendoorn LJ, et al. Lumpectomy margins are affected by tumor size and histologic subtype but not by biopsy technique. Am J Surg. 2004;188:399–402.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clarke DH, Le MG, Sarrazin D, et al. Analysis of loco-regional relapses in patients with early breast cancers treated by excision and radiotherapy: experience of the Institut Goustave-Roussy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1985;11:137–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dillon MF, Hill ADK, Quinn CM, et al. A pathologic assessment of adequate margin status in breast-conserving therapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13(3):333–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Durante E, Cavazzini L, et al. Surgical echography as diagnostic and staging tool in breast pathology. Thoracic surgery. Bologna: Monduzzi Ed; 1988. p. 301–8.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Durante E. Surgery of impalpable disease. In: Jellins J, Rickard M, Madjar H, editors. Breast ultrasound and mammography seminar. International Breast Ultrasound School Book: Mexico; 1993. p. 88–97.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Durante E, Pellegrini F, Carbonell Luna MI. Preoperative local staging of invasive cancer by US. In: Badulescu F, Bondari A, Enachescu V, editors. Syllabus of Euroson School Course Breast Ultrasound (ISBN 973-7757-23-8). Craiova (Romania): Editura Medicala Universitara Craiova; 2004. p. 77–80.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Durante E, Pellegrini F, Carbonell Luna MI. US breast conservative surgery and sentinel node. In: Badulescu F, Bondari A, Enachescu V, editors. Syllabus of Euroson School Course Breast Ultrasound (ISBN 973-7757-23-8). Craiova (Romania): Editura Medicala Universitara Craiova; 2004. p. 90–4.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Local recurrence and breast cancer mortality. Lancet. 2005;366:2087–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Going JJ, Mohun TJ. Human breast duct anatomy, the ‘sick lobe’ hypothesis and intraductal approaches to breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006;97:285–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Haid A, Knauer M, Dunzinger S. Intra-operative sonography: a valuable aid during breast-conserving surgery for occult breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:3090–101.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Harlow SP, Krag DN, Ames SE. Intraoperative ultrasound localization to guide surgical excision of nonpalpable breast carcinoma. J Am Coll Surg. 1999;189:241–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Heimann R, Powers C, Halpem HJ, et al. Breast preservation in stage I and II carcinoma of the breast. The University of Chicago experience. Cancer. 1996;78:1722–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Holland R, SHJ V, Mravunac M, Hendriks JH. Histologic multifocality of Tis, T1–2 breast carcinomas implications for clinical trials of breast-conserving surgery. Cancer. 1985;56(5):979–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Huston TL, Simmons RM. Locally recurrent breast cancer after conservation therapy. Am J Surg. 2005;189:229–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jellins J, Kossoff G, Buddee FW, Reeve TS. Ultrasonic visualization of the breast. Med J Aust. 1971;1:305.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jellins J, Kossoff G, Reeve TS, Barraclough BH. Ultrasonic grey scale visualization of breast disease. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1975;1:393–404.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jenkinson AD, Al Mufti RA, Mohsen Y, et al. Does intraductal breast cancer spread in a segmental distribution? An analysis of residual tumour burden following segmental mastectomy using tumour bed biopsies. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2001;27:21–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Khan SA, Eladoumikdachi F. Optimal surgical treatment of breast cancer: implications for local control and survival. J Surg Oncol. 2010;101:677–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kaufman CS, Bachman BA, Jacobson L. Intraoperative digital specimen mammography: prompt image review speeds surgery. Am J Surg. 2006;192:513–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kaufman CS, Jacobson L, Bachman BA, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound facilitates surgery for early breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002;9(10):988–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kikuchi Y, Tanaka K, Wagai T. Early cancer diagnosis through ultrasonics. J Acoust Soc Am. 1957;29(7):824–33.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kobayashi T. Present status of differential diagnosis of breast cancer by ultrasound. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 1974;4(2):145–58.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Landercasper J, Attai D, Atisha D, et al. Toolbox to reduce lumpectomy reoperations and improve cosmetic outcome in breast cancer patients: the American Society of Breast Surgeons Consensus Conference. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:3174–83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Margenthaler J. A: Optimizing conservative breast surgery. J Surg Oncol. 2011;103:306–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Merrill AL, Coopey SB, Tang R, et al. Implications of new lumpectomy margin guidelines for breast-conserving surgery: changes in reexcision rates and predicted rates of residual tumor. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:729–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mesurolle B, El-Khoury M, Hori D, et al. Sonography of postexcision specimens of nonpalpable breast lesions: value, limitations and description of a method. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;186:1014–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mirza NQ, Vlastos G, Meric F, et al. Predictors of locoregional recurrence among patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002;9(3):256–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Moore MM, Whitney LA, Cerilli L, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound is associated with clear lumpectomy margins for palpable infiltrating ductal breast cancer. Ann Surg. 2001;233:761–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mullenix PS, Cuadrado DG, Steele SR, et al. Secondary operations are frequently required to complete the surgical phase of therapy in the era of breast conservation and sentinel lymph node biopsy. Am J Surg. 2004;187:643–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ngo C, Pollet AG, Laperrelle J, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound localization of nonpalpable breast cancers. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:2485–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Paramo JC, Landeros M, McPhee MD, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound-guided excision of nonpalpable breast lesions. Breast J. 1999;5(6):389–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    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;18:1668–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pleijhuis RG, Graafland M, de Vries J, et al. Obtaining adequate surgical margins in breast-conserving therapy for patients with early-stage breast cancer: current modalities and future directions. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:2717–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Potter S, Hovindarajulu S, Cawthorn SJ, et al. Accuracy of sonographic localisation and specimen ultrasound performed by surgeons in impalpable screen-detected breast lesions. Breast. 2007;16:425–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rahusen FD, Bremers AJ, Fabry HF, et al. Ultrasound-guided lumpectomy of nonpalpable breast cancer versus wire-guided resection: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002;9:994–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sardaro A, Petruzzelli MF, MP D’E, et al. Radiation-induced cardiac damage in early left breast cancer patients: risk factors, biological mechanisms, radiobiology, and dosimetric constraints. Radiother Oncol. 2012;102:133–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sabel M. S: Surgical considerations in early-stage breast cancer: lessons learned and future directions. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2011;21:10–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Schwartz GF, Goldberg BB, Rifkin MD, et al. Ultrasonography: an alternative to x-ray guided needle localization of nonpalpable breast masses. Surgery. 1988;104:870–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Singletary S. E: Surgical margins in patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast conservation therapy. Am J Surg. 2002;184:383–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Snider HC, Morrison DG. Intraoperative ultrasound localization of nonpalpable breast lesions. Ann Surg Oncol. 1999;6(3):308–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Soderstrom CE, Harms SE, Farrel SE, et al. Detection with MR imaging of residual tumor in the breast soon after surgery. Am J Roentgenol. 1997;168:485–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tot T. DCIS, cytokeratins, and the theory of the sick lobe. Virchows Arch. 2005;447:1–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Tot T, Tabár L, Dean P. B: The pressing need for better histologic–mammographic correlation of the many variations in normal breast anatomy. Virchows Arch. 2000;437:338–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Tot T. The limited prognostic value of measuring and grading small invasive breast carcinomas: the whole sick lobe versus the details within it. Med Sci Monit. 2006;12(8):RA170–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Tot T. The theory of the sick breast lobe and the possible consequences. Int J Surg Pathol. 2007;15:369–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Tot T, Gere M. Radiological–pathological correlation in diagnosing breast carcinoma: the role of pathology in the multimodality Era. Pathol Oncol Res. 2008;14:173–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Tot T. Subgross morphology, the sick lobe hypothesis, and the success of breast conservation. Int J Breast Cancer. 2011;2011:634021. Scholar
  56. 56.
    Tot T. The role of large-format histopathology in assessing subgross morphological prognostic parameters: a single institution report of 1000 consecutive breast cancer cases. Int J Breast Cancer. 2012;2012:395415.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Tot T. Breast cancer subgross morphological parameters and their relation to molecular phenotypes and prognosis. J OncoPathol. 2014;2(4):69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Townsend CM, Craig JA. Breast lumps. Clin Symp. 1980;32(2):1–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Waljee JF, Hu ES, Newman LA, et al. Predictors of re-excision among women undergoing breast conserving surgery for cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:1297–303.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wild JJ, Neal D. Use of high-frequency ultrasonic waves for detecting changes of texture in living tissues. Lancet. 1951;1:655–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Wild JJ, Reid JM. Further pilot echographic studies on the histologic structure of tumors of the living intact human breast. Am J Pathol. 1952;28:839–61.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Wilke LG, Czechura T, Wang C, et al. Repeat surgery after breast conservation for the treatment of stage 0 to II breast carcinoma. A report from the National Cancer Data Base, 2004-2010. JAMA Surg. 2014;149(12):1296–305.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of FerraraFerraraItaly

Personalised recommendations