Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective

This study was designed to compare the margin clearance and re-excision rates of ultrasound (US)- and wire-guided excision in a large number of patients with nonpalpable breast cancer.

Methods

In total, 520 women who were histologically diagnosed with nonpalpable breast cancer were recruited in this study. All nonpalpable lesions were visible by US. The patients were randomly divided into two groups: those who underwent wire-guided breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and those who underwent US-guided BCS. Re-excision rates and positive surgical margins were recorded.

Results

A total of 262 patients underwent US-guided excision and 258 patients underwent wire-guided excision. No differences were found in tumor or patient characteristics. The positive margin rate was 4.6% in the US-guided group and 19.4% in the wire-guided group with a significant difference. Age, menopausal status, excision volume, histological grade, and tumor type significantly influenced the positive surgical margin rate. The intraoperative re-excision rate was significantly lower in the US-guided group than wire-guided group (11.1% vs. 24.0%, respectively).

Conclusions

US-guided BCS seems to be more effective than wire-guided BCS for treatment of nonpalpable breast cancers in terms of the margin clearance and re-excision rates. Patients can avoid the discomfort caused by preoperative wire placement.

Keywords

Nonpalpable breast-conserving surgery intraoperative ultrasound breast cancer margin clearance re-excision

Introduction

With the introduction of screening programs for breast cancer, the median tumor size has greatly decreased. More than one-third of breast cancers are estimated to be nonpalpable in surgical practice.¹ Breast-conserving surgery (BCS), which is as safe and effective as mastectomy, has become a common surgical modality for early breast cancer.² The incidence of inadequate (close or positive) excision margins ranges from 5% to 60%.³ Patients sometimes agree to undergo re-excision to reduce the recurrence rate of ipsilateral breast cancer and obtain clear pathologic margins.

Various localization methods are used to obtain adequate surgical margins, including wire-guided, palpation-guided, and radio-guided excision.⁴ Wire-guided excision is the current treatment method for nonpalpable breast cancers. The surgeon’s experience and the radiologist’s accuracy in guidewire placement will influence the resection of nonpalpable breast cancer. Wire-guided excision is frequently inadequate; approximately 20% of patients still need to undergo a second surgical treatment despite the breast cancer being diagnosed before surgery.⁵ Additionally, preoperative placement of a guidewire is uncomfortable for the patient, which increases the patient’s anxiety about the operation.⁶

Ultrasound (US) has been extensively applied to image-guided breast biopsy procedures.^7,8 Intraoperative US was first used as an alternative means to detect nonpalpable breast cancers in BCS in the late 1980s.⁹ The surgeon can use US to visually remove the nonpalpable malignancy and obtain adequate margins.¹⁰ The security and feasibility of this method have been tested by several groups, but only a few patients were included, and the advantages of US-guided BCS remain controversial.^11,12 The aim of this study was to compare the margin clearance and re-excision rates of wire- and US-guided BCS in a large number of patients with nonpalpable breast cancer.

Patients and methods

Patients

This study was designed according to the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Guangxi Medical University (IRB number: 2017-151). Patients who were diagnosed with and treated for primary breast cancer from June 2010 to January 2015 at the Affiliated Tumor Hospital were included in this study. Patients with an established diagnosis of nonpalpable breast cancer willing to undergo BCS were eligible for analysis. The patients were enrolled in the study only when US clearly displayed nonpalpable breast cancer. We excluded patients with palpable tumors, patients undergoing mastectomy, patients with ductal carcinoma in situ, and patients treated without surgery. These patients were randomized into two groups: those who underwent standard wire-guided BCS and those who underwent US-guided tumor excision. The patients were randomized based on a random number table. All patients were informed of the US- and wire-guided procedures in detail, and all provided written informed consent to participate in the study. The details of the study design are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Study design. BCS, breast-conserving surgery; US, ultrasound.

Surgery

Five surgeons and three radiologists from the Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Guangxi Medical University participated in the study. The patients were grouped into US- and wire-guided excision groups according to the localization method. In the wire-guided group, a dedicated radiologist used US to place wires the day before surgery (Figure 2). Repeat mammography was used to verify all wire positions. The operation was performed by an experienced oncological breast surgeon. During the operation, the tumor was excised using the wire for localization. After tumor resection, all specimens were sent to the radiology department for mammographic confirmation (Figure 3). When suspicious surgical margins were found in the specimen radiographic examination, additional intraoperative resection of the shave margins was performed from the excision cavity.

Figure 2.

Ultrasound guidance was used to place wires.

Figure 3.

Mammographic confirmation of the specimen.

In the US group, the surgeon used a portable 14-MHz US probe (Toshiba Viamo; Toshiba, Tokyo, Japan). The location of the tumor was observed by US before the operation began (Figure 4). A sterile skin marker was used to mark the excision borders. The distance from the tumor to the muscular layer and depth from the skin was detected by US to evaluate the extent of surgical resection. The tissue was then resected perpendicularly to the chest wall in a cylindrical manner. During surgery, palpation and US examination of the cavity and remaining breast were performed to exclude further tumor foci. After tumor removal, ex vivo US examination of the specimen was immediately performed to confirm the presence of the tumor in the resected specimen. The specimen was also examined by X-ray after surgical excision. The surgeon measured the distance between the lump and the resection margin in all directions. If a suspicious surgical margin was observed, re-excision of the shave margins was immediately performed.

Figure 4.

Ultrasound image of the tumor.

In both groups, titanium clips were placed at the lumpectomy site for radiotherapy treatment. The specimen was examined by an experienced pathologist after excision. Repeat excision was performed in a second operation when the initial surgical specimen was found to have positive surgical margins. The total resection volume was obtained by summing the volume of the original surgical resection specimen and the margin of intraoperative re-excision, which was measured by the pathologist.

Pathology

All specimens were sent to the pathologist and measured in the pathology department. The size of the tumor was first measured after the specimens were carefully inked and cut. The surgical margins were evaluated based on current Dutch breast cancer guidelines: negative, margin distance of ≥4 mm; positive, margin distance of <4 mm or tumor cells present at the inked edge of the specimen.

Statistical analysis

SPSS 17.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used for the statistical calculations. The different pathological variables between the two groups were compared using Fisher’s exact test or the chi-square test. The mean of nonparametric variables was compared by variance analysis. A P value of <0.05 was taken to indicate statistical significance in all analyses.

Results

Patient and tumor characteristics

From June 2010 to January 2015, 1576 patients with primary breast cancer at our hospital were enrolled in this study. A total of 1056 patients were excluded because they had palpable breast cancer (n = 913), underwent mastectomy for nonpalpable breast cancer (n = 97), did not undergo surgery (n = 30), or had ductal carcinoma in situ (n = 16) (Figure 1). The remaining 520 patients were randomly assigned to undergo either wire-guided BCS (n = 258) or US-guided BCS (n = 262).

The patient and tumor characteristics are shown in Table 1. The mean age of the patients was 59 years in the wire-guided group (range, 38–72 years) and 63 years in the US-guided group (range, 27–74 years). The median tumor size was similar in the two groups. The mean excision volume was 96 mm³ in the wire-guided group and 92 mm³ in the US-guided group, with no statistically significant difference. No screening items showed a significant difference between the two groups.

Table 1.

Patient and tumor characteristics.

Variables	Wire-guided excision	US-guided excision	P value
Age, years	59 ± 9.9	63 ± 10.1	0.230
Tumor size, mm	9 ± 3.6	8 ± 3.6	0.375
Excision volume, mm³	96 ± 53.6	92 ± 51.4	0.864
Multifocality			0.877
No	235 (91.1)	240 (91.6)
Yes	23 (8.9)	22 (8.4)
Spicular growth			0.661
No	82 (48.2)	88 (51.8)
Yes	176 (50.3)	174 (49.7)
Menopausal status			0.290
Premenopausal	70 (27.1)	83 (31.7)
Postmenopausal	188 (72.9)	179 (68.3)
Histologic type			0.271
Ductal	242 (93.8)	240 (91.6)
Lobular	11 (4.3)	19 (7.3)
Others	5 (1.9)	3 (1.1)
Intraductal component			0.528
No	95 (36.8)	104 (39.7)
Yes	163 (63.2)	158 (60.3)
Lymph node status			0.545
Negative	244 (94.6)	251 (95.8)
Positive	14 (5.4)	11 (4.2)
Histologic grade			0.146
1	43 (16.7)	52 (19.8)
2	140 (54.2)	153 (58.4)
3	75 (29.1)	57 (21.8)
ER status			0.167
Negative	49 (19.0)	63 (24.0)
Positive	209 (81.0)	199 (76.0)
PR status			0.150
Negative	92 (35.7)	110 (42.0)
Positive	166 (64.3)	152 (58.0)
HER-2 status			0.273
Negative	212 (82.2)	205 (78.2)
Positive	46 (17.8)	57 (21.8)

Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation or n (%).

US, ultrasound; ER, estrogen receptor; PR, progesterone receptor; HER-2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2.

Tumor margins

The influence of the patient and tumor characteristics on the surgical margins was first studied by US examination. The margin state is summarized in Table 2. Most tumors (88.1%) had a negative surgical margin. Age, menopausal status, excision volume, histological grade, and tumor type significantly affected the positive surgical margin rate (Table 2). Positive surgical margins were more likely to occur in postmenopausal women of advanced age (P = 0.005). Multifocality (P = 0.006) and spicular growth (P = 0.036) were more closely associated with positive surgical margins. The excision volume (P = 0.026), tumors with intermediate-grade differentiation (P = 0.001), and tumors of lobular histologic type (P < 0.001) were also associated with a higher risk of positive resection margins.

Table 2.

Margin status.

Variables	Surgical margin		P value
Variables	Negative	Positive	P value
Age, years	60 ± 10.1	65 ± 10.3	0.038^†
Tumor size, mm	8 ± 3.5	9 ± 3.6	0.450
Excision volume, mm³	92 ± 51.6	82 ± 46.2	0.026^†
Multifocality			0.006^‡
No	425 (89.5)	50 (10.5)
Yes	33 (73.3)	12 (26.7)
Spicular growth			0.036^‡
No	157 (92.4)	13 (7.6)
Yes	301 (86.0)	49 (14.0)
Menopausal status			0.005^‡
Premenopausal	144 (94.1)	9 (5.9)
Postmenopausal	314 (85.3)	53 (14.7)
Histologic type			<0.001
Ductal	435 (90.2)	47 (9.8)
Lobular	17 (56.7)	13 (43.3)
Others	6 (75.0)	2 (25.0)
Intraductal component			0.212
No	180 (90.5)	19 (9.5)
Yes	278 (86.6)	43 (13.4)
Lymph node status			0.204
Negative	438 (88.5)	57 (11.5)
Positive	20 (80.0)	5 (20.0)
Histologic grade			0.001^‡
1	92 (96.8)	3 (3.2)
2	245 (83.6)	48 (16.4)
3	121 (91.7)	11 (8.3)
ER status			0.249
Negative	95 (84.8)	17 (15.2)
Positive	363 (89.0)	45 (11.0)
PR status			0.331
Negative	174 (86.1)	28 (13.9)
Positive	284 (89.3)	34 (10.7)
HER-2 status			0.737
Negative	366 (87.8)	51 (12.2)
Positive	92 (89.3)	11 (10.7)

Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation or n (%).

ER, estrogen receptor; PR, progesterone receptor; HER-2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2.

^†Analysis of variance, P < 0.05; ^‡Chi-square test, P < 0.05.

Margins after US-guided versus wire-guided resection

Of all 262 US-guided resections, 12 (4.6%) tumors had positive margins and 250 (95.4%) had negative margins. These rates for wire-guided resections were 50 (19.4%) and 208 (80.6%), respectively (Table 3). Therefore, the effect of US-guided resection was significantly better than that of wire-guided resection (95.4% vs. 80.6%, respectively; P < 0.001).

Table 3.

Margins after US-guided versus wire-guided resections.

Margins	Wire-guidedexcision	US-guidedexcision	P value
Negative	208 (80.6)	250 (95.4)	<0.001
Positive	50 (19.4)	12 (4.6)	<0.001

Data are presented as n (%).

US, ultrasound.

Tumor localization

The shaving rate (intraoperative re-excision) was significantly higher in the wire-guided than US-guided BCS group (24.0% vs. 11.1%, respectively; P < 0.001). The shave margins were removed under the guidance of US or specimen radiography, respectively. Among patients who underwent additional shave margins, histologic examination of the shave margins showed that the problematic margin was correctly identified by intraoperative US-guided re-excision in 27 (91.7%) of 29 cases. In the wire-guided BCS re-excision group, the shave margins were able to be excised in the correct direction in only 21 (33.9%) of 62 cases (P < 0.001). There was also a significant difference in the re-excision rate via a second operation between the two groups (P < 0.001) (Table 4). Twelve (4.6%) of 262 patients in the US-guided group and 50 (19.4%) of 258 patients in the wire-guided group underwent a second operation. In the US-guided BCS group, four women underwent re-excision during the second operation and eight women underwent a mastectomy. In the wire-guided BCS group, five women underwent re-excision during the second operation and 45 women required a mastectomy to prevent recurrence (Figure 1).

Table 4.

Tumor localization and re-excision rates.

Variables	Wire-guided excision	US-guided excision	P value
Intraoperative re-excision			<0.001
Yes	62 (24.0)	29 (11.1)
No	196 (76.0)	233 (88.9)
Intraoperative re-excision in correct direction			<0.001
Yes	21 (33.9)	27 (91.7)
No	41 (66.1)	2 (8.3)
Second operation			<0.001
Yes	50 (19.4)	12 (4.6)
No	208 (80.6)	250 (95.4)

Data are presented as n (%).

US, ultrasound.

Discussion

BCS combined with adjuvant radiation is a common treatment method for early breast cancer and is as effective and safe as mastectomy.² However, the main difficulty facing surgeons is still the achievement of clear surgical margins. Research has proven that positive resection margins are closely associated with local recurrence.¹³ If the surgical margin is positive, mastectomy or re-excision must be performed, which is uncomfortable for patients and increases the cost of hospitalization.^14,15 Therefore, to reduce the risk of local recurrence and the re-excision rate, it is particularly important to obtain a clear surgical margin intraoperatively.

US-guided breast surgery is a promising method of obtaining clear surgical margins.^16–18 US can be used as a localization method before BCS or after mastectomy to confirm the existence of tumors in the specimen.^19,20 However, many of these studies have been limited by a small sample size or a retrospective design with the potential risk of recall bias. Therefore, the effect of US-guided BCS has been controversial. In a randomized controlled study, Krekel et al.²¹ demonstrated the effect of US-guided breast surgery in the treatment of palpable breast cancer. In total, 134 patients with palpable breast cancer were recruited in their study and randomly assigned to either palpation- or US-guided BCS. Of the 69 patients in the palpation-guided group, 12 (17%) had positive resection margins; in contrast, of the 65 patients in the US-guided group, only 2 (3%) had positive margins (P = 0.009). The results of US-guided resection in the present study were similar to these.

With the development of technology, nonpalpable breast cancer can be detected increasingly earlier. Early detection was achieved in 520 patients in this study. The use of intraoperative US is an alternative way to detect nonpalpable breast tumors.²² In previous studies, the re-excision rate of US-guided surgery for nonpalpable breast cancer ranged from 3% to 9%.^23,24 The use of intraoperative US provides a significant benefit for the surgeon because it facilitates immediate assessment of the resection margins.²⁵ A recent retrospective study showed that in 85.7% of patients, US-guided BCS had sufficient surgical margins, which was in accordance with our study.³ The shave margins were re-excised using US in 27 patients. Therefore, these 27 patients were able to avoid reoperation because of the use of intraoperative US. The positive margin rate was thus reduced from 14.9% (39/262 cases) to 4.6% (12/262 cases). Similar results have also been obtained in retrospective²¹ and prospective studies.^20,26 Multifocality, spicular growth, a small resection volume, and postmenopausal status increase the risk of positive resection margins.

One of the major issues discussed in the current study was the comparison of wire-guided BCS with other methods, including US-guided BCS or radio-guided localization of occult lesions. The effect of US- and wire-guided BCS on resection margins has been evaluated in three similar studies.^27–29 James et al.²⁹ demonstrated a statistically significant difference in the positive surgical margin rate between wire- and US-guided surgery (17% vs. 6%, respectively; P = 0.030). Other studies showed that the clear surgical margin rate in US-guided surgery was 90.0%, while that in wire-guided surgery was 78.2%;^28,30 this is in agreement with our data. Notably, the rate of a second operation to achieve adequate margins was also significantly different between the two techniques, which is consistent with our results.³¹

It can be speculated that surgeons must excise more tissue to obtain a clear surgical margin. Interestingly, this hypothesis was overturned in our study. US-guided BCS had more adequate resection margins, but the mean excision volume was not significantly different from that of wire-guided BCS (92 vs. 96 mm³, respectively). This not only facilitates the surgery but also improves the cosmetic effect of BCS. The resected tissue volume has been shown to be inversely related to the cosmetic results.³²

One study confirmed that US-guided BCS has the advantage of a low re-excision rate for patients with nonpalpable breast cancer, but the sample size was small.¹¹ In the present study, intraoperative re-excision was performed in 24.0% of wire-guided resections, which was higher than that of US-guided excisions (11.1%). The surgeon could properly identify the problematic margin with US in 91.7% of cases. Only 33.9% of cases were properly resected in the wire-guided BCS group. These findings are similar to the results of US-guided BCS for palpable breast cancer in terms of the margin status and re-excision rate.³³ Therefore, intraoperative US can be used to detect positive surgical margins and is a safe and sensitive method.

Another advantage of more exact resection is that patients need not undergo a second surgery. In such cases, the patient’s health condition can be improved and the hospital costs will be reduced. In one study, the rate of pathologically adequate surgical margins was improved when the distance between the resection margin and tumor edge was measured.²²

The design of US-guided BCS is to achieve the current trend of BCS. According to the present study and literature review, US-guided BCS is a feasible, effective, and reproducible procedure with good sensitivity. It is also easy to perform and can reduce hospital costs.^34–36 US-guided localization had lower costs than and a shorter preoperative wait time than wire-guided localization. It could be used as an alternative to wire-guided localization in preoperative marking of nonpalpable breast lesions.³⁷

A limitation of our study is that we did not perform a logistic regression analysis to determine the relative contributions of various risk factors to positive margins. Another is that we did not evaluate the cosmetic outcome, the rate of tumor recurrence, or patient satisfaction with these procedures. However, a major advantage of this study is that the tumor characteristics and patients were equally distributed between the two groups, which helps to avoid selection bias. The large number of patients recruited in our research could improve the external validity of this study.

In conclusion, when nonpalpable lesions are visible by US in patients with breast cancer, it seems that US-guided lumpectomy is superior to wire-guided resection with respect to margin clearance. This will reduce the rate of a second operation for re-excision. In addition, patients can avoid undergoing unpleasant wire placement before surgery. Finally, US-guided BCS allows the surgeon to be independent of the pathologist or radiologist and may become a standard surgical procedure.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Funding

This study was funded by the Natural Science Foundation of Guangxi (2016GXNSFAA380172).

ORCID iD

Xin Hu

References

Lovrics

Cornacchi

Farrokhyar

et al. The relationship between surgical factors and margin status after breast-conservation surgery for early stage breast cancer. Am J Surg 2009; 197: 740–746. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2008.03.007.

Fisher

Anderson

Bryant

et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 1233–1241. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa022152.

Eggemann

Ignatov

Beni

et al. Ultrasonography-guided breast-conserving surgery is superior to palpation-guided surgery for palpable breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer 2014; 14: 40–45. DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2013.08.016.

Lovrics

Cornacchi

Vora

et al. Systematic review of radioguided surgery for non-palpable breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2011; 37: 388–397. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2011.01.018.

Langhans

Jensen

Talman

et al. Reoperation rates in ductal carcinoma in situ vs invasive breast cancer after wire-guided breast-conserving surgery. JAMA Surg 2017; 152: 378–384. DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.4751.

Romanoff

Schmidt

McMurray

et al. Physician preference and patient satisfaction with radioactive seed versus wire localization. J Surg Res 2017; 210: 177–180. DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2016.11.008.

Fornage

Sneige

Edeiken

BS.

Interventional breast sonography.

Eur J Radiol 2002; 42: 17–31.

Nurko

Edwards

MJ.

Image-guided breast surgery.

Am J Surg 2005; 190: 221–227. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.05.016.

Schwartz

Goldberg

Rifkin

et al. Ultrasonography: an alternative to x-ray-guided needle localization of nonpalpable breast masses. Surgery 1988; 104: 870–873.

10.

Wang

Shen

et al. Clinical analysis of 137 cases of ultrasound-guided positioning for resection of non-palpable breast masses. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2016; 37: 388–390.

11.

Ahmed

Douek

Intra-operative ultrasound versus wire-guided localization in the surgical management of non-palpable breast cancers: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013; 140: 435–446. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-013-2639-2.

12.

Pan

Ding

et al. Intraoperative ultrasound guidance is associated with clear lumpectomy margins for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2013; 8: e74028. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074028.

13.

Luini

Rososchansky

Gatti

et al. The surgical margin status after breast-conserving surgery: discussion of an open issue. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009; 113: 397–402. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-008-9929-0.

14.

Kaufmann

Morrow

von Minckwitz

et al. Locoregional treatment of primary breast cancer: consensus recommendations from an international expert panel. Cancer 2010; 116: 1184–1191. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.24874.

15.

Morrow

Trends in the surgical treatment of breast cancer.

Breast J 2010; 16: S17–S19. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2010.00996.x.

16.

Vispute

Seenu

Parshad

et al. Comparison of resection margins and cosmetic outcome following intraoperative ultrasound-guided excision versus conventional palpation-guided breast conservation surgery in breast cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Indian J Cancer 2018; 55: 361–365. DOI: 10.4103/ijc.IJC_2_18.

17.

Hoffmann

Marx

Hengstmann

et al. Ultrasound-assisted tumor surgery in breast cancer - a prospective, randomized, single-center study (MAC 001). Ultraschall Med 2019; 40: 326–332. DOI: 10.1055/a-0637-1725.

18.

Arko

Cas Sikosek

Kozar

et al. The value of ultrasound-guided surgery for breast cancer. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2017; 216: 198–203. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.07.034.

19.

Fisher

Mushawah

Cyr

et al. Ultrasound-guided lumpectomy for palpable breast cancers. Ann Surg Oncol 2011; 18: 3198–3203. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-011-1958-y.

20.

Davis

Hsu

Bouton

et al. Intraoperative ultrasound can decrease the re-excision lumpectomy rate in patients with palpable breast cancers. Am Surg 2011; 77: 720–725.

21.

Krekel

Haloua

Lopes Cardozo

et al. Intraoperative ultrasound guidance for palpable breast cancer excision (COBALT trial): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14: 48–54. DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(12)70527-2.

22.

Eggemann

Ignatov

Costa

et al. Accuracy of ultrasound-guided breast-conserving surgery in the determination of adequate surgical margins. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2014; 145: 129–136. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-014-2932-8.

23.

Chiang

Kuo

et al. Low re-excision rate for positive margins in patients treated with ultrasound-guided breast-conserving surgery. Breast 2013; 22: 698–702. DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2012.12.019.

24.

Fortunato

Penteriani

Farina

et al. Intraoperative ultrasound is an effective and preferable technique to localize non-palpable breast tumors. Eur J Surg Oncol 2008; 34: 1289–1292. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2007.11.011.

25.

Rubio

Esgueva-Colmenarejo

Espinosa-Bravo

et al. Intraoperative ultrasound-guided lumpectomy versus mammographic wire localization for breast cancer patients after neoadjuvant treatment. Ann Surg Oncol 2016; 23: 38–43. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-015-4935-z.

26.

Olsha

Shemesh

Carmon

et al. Resection margins in ultrasound-guided breast-conserving surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 2011; 18: 447–452. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-010-1280-0.

27.

Barentsz

van Dalen

Gobardhan

et al. Intraoperative ultrasound guidance for excision of non-palpable invasive breast cancer: a hospital-based series and an overview of the literature. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012; 135: 209–219. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-012-2165-7.

28.

Krekel

Zonderhuis

Stockmann

et al. A comparison of three methods for nonpalpable breast cancer excision. Eur J Surg Oncol 2011; 37: 109–115. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2010.12.006.

29.

James

Harlow

Sheehey-Jones

et al. Intraoperative ultrasound versus mammographic needle localization for ductal carcinoma in situ. Ann Surg Oncol 2009; 16: 1164–1169. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-009-0388-6.

30.

Haid

Knauer

Dunzinger

et al. Intra-operative sonography: a valuable aid during breast-conserving surgery for occult breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2007; 14: 3090–3101. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-007-9490-9.

31.

Esgueva

Rodriguez-Revuelto

Espinosa-Bravo

et al. Learning curves in intraoperative ultrasound guided surgery in breast cancer based on complete breast cancer excision and no need for second surgeries. Eur J Surg Oncol 2019; 45: 578–583. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2019.01.017.

32.

Vrieling

Collette

Fourquet

et al. The influence of patient, tumor and treatment factors on the cosmetic results after breast-conserving therapy in the EORTC ‘boost vs. no boost' trial. EORTC Radiotherapy and Breast Cancer Cooperative Groups. Radiother Oncol 2000; 55: 219–232.

33.

Karadeniz Cakmak

Emre

Tascilar

et al. Surgeon performed continuous intraoperative ultrasound guidance decreases re-excisions and mastectomy rates in breast cancer. Breast 2017; 33: 23–28. DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2017.02.014.

34.

Donaldson

Cliff

Gardiner

et al. Surgeon-controlled ultrasound-guided core biopsies in the breast–a prospective study and a new use for surgeons in the clinic. Eur J Surg Oncol 2003; 29: 139–142.

35.

Krekel

Lopes Cardozo

Muller

et al. Optimising surgical accuracy in palpable breast cancer with intra-operative breast ultrasound–feasibility and surgeons' learning curve. Eur J Surg Oncol 2011; 37: 1044–1050. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2011.08.127.

36.

Haloua

Krekel

Coupe

et al. Ultrasound-guided surgery for palpable breast cancer is cost-saving: results of a cost-benefit analysis. Breast 2013; 22: 238–243. DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2013.02.002.

37.

Chan

Wiseberg-Firtell

Jois

et al. Localization techniques for guided surgical excision of non-palpable breast lesions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015: (12); Cd009206. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009206.pub2.

Intraoperative ultrasound-guided lumpectomy versus wire-guided excision for nonpalpable breast cancer

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Introduction

Patients and methods

Patients

Surgery

Pathology

Statistical analysis

Results

Patient and tumor characteristics

Tumor margins

Margins after US-guided versus wire-guided resection

Tumor localization

Discussion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interest

Funding

ORCID iD

References