Abstract
Background
We sought to determine the re-excision rate following lumpectomy for palpable breast cancers using intraoperative ultrasound (US). A secondary aim was to investigate the impact on surgical decision-making.
Methods
We identified 73 women who underwent US-guided lumpectomy for palpable breast cancer between 2006 and 2010. A cohort of 124 women who underwent palpation-guided lumpectomy was used for a comparison group. Data included patient demographics, tumor characteristics, intraoperative findings, and pathologic outcomes. Descriptive statistics were used for data summary and compared by chi-square or t test, as appropriate.
Results
A total of 73 women underwent US-guided lumpectomy, and 124 women underwent palpation-guided lumpectomy (median age 55 years). Patients undergoing palpation-guided lumpectomy had smaller tumors that were more likely to be HER2/neu amplified compared with patients undergoing US-guided lumpectomy (P < 0.05 for each). There were no differences between the 2 groups with respect to patient age, tumor grade, and estrogen/progesterone receptor status (P > 0.05 for each). Re-excision rates were similar in both groups [17 (23%) in the US group versus 31 (25%) in the palpation group; P > 0.05]. In the US group, 45 patients (62%) had additional shave margins taken based on US interrogation of the specimen, and 12 patients (16%) were spared a 2nd procedure based on the use of intraoperative US.
Conclusions
Although palpable breast cancers can be excised based on direct palpation or needle localization, we believe that US guidance provides an excellent tool to aid the breast surgeon. Only 10% of patients had a positive margin on final pathology as a result, and the overall re-excision rate was acceptable.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Al-Ghazal SK, Fallowfield L, Blamey RW. Does cosmetic outcome from treatment of primary breast cancer influence psychosocial morbidity? Eur J Surg Oncol. 1999;25:571–3.
Cochrane RA, Valasiadou P, Wilson AR, Al-Ghazal SK, Macmillan RD. Cosmesis and satisfaction after breast-conserving surgery correlates with the percentage of breast volume excised. Br J Surg. 2003;90:1505–9.
Vrieling C, Collette L, Bartelink E, Borger JH, Brenninkmeyer SJ, Horiot JC, et al. Validation of the methods of cosmetic assessment after breast-conserving therapy in the EORTC “Boost versus No Boost” trial. Int J Radiation Oncology Biol Phys. 1999;45:667–76.
Krekel NM, Zonderhuis BM, Muller S, Bril H, van Slooten HJ, de Lange de Klerk ESM, et al. Excessive resections in breast-conserving surgery: a retrospective multicentre study. Breast J. 2011;17:5.
Schwartz GF, Goldberg BB, Rifkin MD, D’Orazio SE. Ultrasonography: an alternative to x-ray-guided needle localization of nonpalpable breast masses. Surgery. 1988;104:870–3.
Krekel NM, Zonderhuis BM, Stockmann HBAC, Schreurs WH, van der Veen H, de Lange de Klerk ES, et al. A comparison of three methods for nonpalpable breast cancer excision. EJSO. 2011;37:109–15.
Rahusen FD, Bremers AJA, Fabry HFJ, 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;6:994–8.
Fortunato L, Penteriani R, Farina M, Vitelli CE, Piro FR. Intraoperative ultrasound is an effective and preferable technique to localize non-palpable breast tumors. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008;34:1289–92.
Olsha O, Shemesh D, Carmon M, Sibirsky O, Abu Dalo R, Rivkin L, et al. Resection Margins in Ultrasound-Guided Breast-Conserving Surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:447–52.
Besic N, Kramaric A, Podnar B, Perhavec A, Music M, Grazio-Frkovic S, et al. Factors correlated to successful surgical treatment of 181 non-palpable invasive breast carcinomas. Breast. 2009;18:294–8.
Snider HCJ, Morrison DG. Intraoperative ultrasound localization of nonpalpable breast lesions. Ann Surg Oncol. 1999;189:241–6.
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.
Rahusen FD, Taets van Amerongen AH, van Diest PJ, Borgstein PJ, Bleichrodt RP, Meijer S. Ultrasound-guided lumpectomy of nonpalpable breast cancers: a feasibility study looking at the accuracy of obtained margins. J Surg Oncol. 1999;72:72–6.
Haid A, Knauer M, Dunzinger S, Jasarevic Z, Köberle-Wührer R, Schuster A, et al. Intra-operative sonography: a valuable aid during breast-conserving surgery for occult breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:3090–101.
Moore MM, Whitney LA, Cerilli L, Imbrie JZ, Bunch M, Simpson VB, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound is associated with clear lumpectomy margins for palpable infiltrating ductal breast cancer. Ann Surg. 2001;233:761–8.
Thompson M, Henry-Tillman R, Margulies A, Thostenson J, Bryant-Smith G, Fincher R, et al. Hematoma-directed ultrasound-guided (HUG) breast lumpectomy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:148–56.
James TA, Harlow S, Sheehey-Jones J, Hart M, Gaspari C, Stanley M, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound versus mammographic needle localization for ductal carcinoma in situ. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:1164–9.
Krekel NM, Zonderhuis BM, Schreurs HWH, Schreurs HW, Cardozo AM, Rijna H, et al. Ultrasound-guided breast-sparing surgery to improve cosmetic outcomes and quality of life: A prospective multicentre randomised controlled clinical trial comparing ultrasound-guided surgery to traditional palpation-guided surgery (COBALT trial). BMC Surg. 2011;11:8.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fisher, C.S., Mushawah, F.A., Cyr, A.E. et al. Ultrasound-Guided Lumpectomy for Palpable Breast Cancers. Ann Surg Oncol 18, 3198–3203 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-1958-y
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-011-1958-y