Abstract
Background
Breast cancer is increasingly detected during an early non-palpable stage. Together with pre-operative marking of the mass, intra-operative imaging provides invaluable clues. This study was designed to evaluate the usefulness of intra-operative sonography in the hands of the surgeon.
Methods
Between July 2001 and October 2006, 567 patients underwent treatment for operable breast cancer at the landeskrankenhaus (LHK) Feldkirch. Three hundred and sixty lesions were not palpable. Two hundred and ninety-nine patients with poorly definable or non-definable lesions well seen by ultrasound imaging underwent intra-operative sonography (group 1), while 61 patients with non-palpable lesions only seen on mammography (group 2) were subjected to pre-operative needle localization.
The study was non-randomized with prospective data acquisition
Results
All lesions were identified by both sonography and pre-operative needle localization. In the ultrasound group (group 1) 81% of the lesions were successfully removed by primary intention without metachronous secondary surgery versus 62% in group 2 (p < 0.00228). Eighty-eight percent of the lesions in group 1 were eligible for breast-conserving surgery versus 75% in group 2. The mean clear margin in group 1 was substantially smaller (4.8 mm) than in group 2 (7.2 mm) (p < 0.0001).
Conclusion
Intra-operative sonography proved to be a reliable and helpful tool in the hands of the surgeon, not only for tumor localization, but also for orientation during tumor excision. It simplifies organizational work and spares the patient the discomfort of pre-operative needle localization.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Duffy SW, Tabar L, Vitak B, et al. The Swedish Two-County Trial of mammographic screening: cluster randomisation and end point evaluation. Ann Oncol 2003; 14(8):1196–8
Olsen AH, Njor SH, Vejborg I, et al. Breast cancer mortality in Copenhagen after introduction of mammography screening: cohort study. BMJ 2005; 330(7485):220
Nurko J, Edwards MJ. Image-guided breast surgery. Am J Surg 2005; 190(2):221–7
Gallagher WJ, Cardenosa G, Rubens JR, et al. Minimal-volume excision of nonpalpable breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1989; 153(5):957–61
Buchberger W, Niehoff A, Obrist P, et al. Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: detection and classification with high-resolution sonography. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2000; 21(4):325–36
Buman SJ, Clark DA. Breast intraoperative ultrasound: prospective study in 112 patients with impalpable lesions. ANZ J Surg 2005; 75(3):124–7
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(5):870–3
di Giorgio A, Arnone P, Canavese A. Ultrasound guided excisional biopsy of non-palpable breast lesions: technique and preliminary results. Eur J Surg 1998; 164(11):819–24
Rahusen FD, Taets van Amerongen AH, van Diest PJ, et al. Ultrasound-guided lumpectomy of nonpalpable breast cancers: A feasibility study looking at the accuracy of obtained margins. J Surg Oncol 1999; 72(2):72–6
Henry-Tillman R, Johnson AT, Smith LF, Klimberg VS. Intraoperative ultrasound and other techniques to achieve negative margins. Semin Surg Oncol 2001; 20(3):206–13
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(6):761–8
Kaufman CS, Jacobson L, Bachman B, Kaufman LB. Intraoperative ultrasonography guidance is accurate and efficient according to results in 100 breast cancer patients. Am J Surg 2003; 186(4):378–82
Bennett IC, Greenslade J, Chiam H. Intraoperative ultrasound-guided excision of nonpalpable breast lesions. World J Surg 2005; 29(3):369–74
Goldhirsch A, Glick JH, Gelber RD, et al. Meeting highlights: international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2005. Ann Oncol 2005; 16(10):1569–83
Konstantiniuk P KE, Haid A, Bauer C, Steindorfer Peter. Das MCDBP (multi center database project). Acta Chir Austriaca 2001; 33:200–2001
Decker T, Ruhnke M, Schneider W. Standardized pathologic examination of breast excision specimen. Relevance within an interdisciplinary practice protocol for quality management of breast saving therapy. Pathologe 1997; 18(1):53–9
Obrist P, Brunhuber T, Ensinger C, et al. Pathological examination of breast biopsy specimens. Radiologe 2002; 42(1):1–5
Madjar H, Ohlinger R, Mundinger A, et al. BI-RADS-analogue DEGUM criteria for findings in breast ultrasound–consensus of the DEGUM Committee on Breast Ultrasound. Ultraschall Med 2006; 27(4):374–9
Madjar H, Mundinger A, Degenhardt F, et al. Quality control in breast sonography. Ultraschall Med 2003; 24(3):190–4
Buzdar AU, Ibrahim NK, Francis D, et al. Significantly higher pathologic complete remission rate after neoadjuvant therapy with trastuzumab, paclitaxel, and epirubicin chemotherapy: results of a randomized trial in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23(16):3676–85
Peintinger F, Symmans WF, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, et al. The safety of breast-conserving surgery in patients who achieve a complete pathologic response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer 2006
Nurko J, Mancino AT, Whitacre E, Edwards MJ. Surgical benefits conveyed by biopsy site marking system using ultrasound localization. Am J Surg 2005; 190(4):618–22
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(3):241–6
Snider HC Jr., Morrison DG. Intraoperative ultrasound localization of nonpalpable breast lesions. Ann Surg Oncol 1999; 6(3):308–14
Smith LF, Rubio IT, Henry-Tillman R, et al. Intraoperative ultrasound-guided breast biopsy. Am J Surg 2000; 180(6):419–23
Arriagada R, Le MG, Rochard F, Contesso G. Conservative treatment versus mastectomy in early breast cancer: patterns of failure with 15 years of follow-up data. Institut Gustave-Roussy Breast Cancer Group. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14(5):1558–64
Blichert-Toft M RC, Andersen JA, Overgaard M, Axelsson CK, Andersen KW, Mouridsen HT. Danish randomized trial comparing breast conservation therapy with mastectomy: six years of life-table analysis. Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1992:19–25
Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, 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(16):1233–41
van Dongen JA VA, Fentimen IS, Legrand C, Sylvester RJ, Tong D, van der Schueren E, Helle PA, van Zijl K, Bartelink H. Long-term results of a randomized trial comparing breast-conserving therapy with astectomy: European Organization for Research and treatment of Cancer 10801 Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92:1143–50
Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002; 347(16):1227–32
Jacobson JA, Danforth DN, Cowan KH, et al. Ten-year results of a comparison of conservation with mastectomy in the treatment of stage I and II breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1995; 332(14):907–11
Veronesi U, Marubini E, Del Vecchio M, et al. Local recurrences and distant metastases after conservative breast cancer treatments: partly independent events. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995; 87(1):19–27
Smitt MC, Nowels KW, Zdeblick MJ, et al. The importance of the lumpectomy surgical margin status in long-term results of breast conservation. Cancer 1995; 76(2):259–67
Klimberg VS, Harms S, Korourian S. Assessing margin status. Surg Oncol 1999; 8(2):77–84
Meric F, Mirza NQ, Vlastos G, et al. Positive surgical margins and ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence predict disease-specific survival after breast-conserving therapy. Cancer 2003; 97(4):926–33
Taghian A, Mohiuddin M, Jagsi R, et al. Current perceptions regarding surgical margin status after breast-conserving therapy: results of a survey. Ann Surg 2005; 241(4):629–39
Holland R, Veling SH, 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
Dillon MF, Hill AD, Quinn CM, et al. A pathologic assessment of adequate margin status in breast-conserving therapy. Ann Surg Oncol 2006; 13(3):333–9
Schwartz GF, Veronesi U, Clough KB, et al. Consensus conference on breast conservation, Milan, Italy, April 28-May 1, 2005. Breast J 2006; 12(4):398–407
Greene T, Tartter PI, Smith SR, Estabrook A. The significance of surgical margins for patients with atypical ductal hyperplasia. Am J Surg 2006; 192(4):499–501
Boyages J, Delaney G, Taylor R. Predictors of local recurrence after treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ: a meta-analysis. Cancer 1999; 85(3):616–28
Wong JS. Is radiotherapy boost needed in young patients with ductal carcinoma-in-situ? Lancet Oncol 2006; 7(8):615–7
Singletary SE. Surgical margins in patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast conservation therapy. Am J Surg 2002; 184(5):383–93
Leong C, Boyages J, Jayasinghe UW, et al. Effect of margins on ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence after breast conservation therapy for lymph node-negative breast carcinoma. Cancer 2004; 100(9):1823–32
Aziz D, Rawlinson E, Narod SA, et al. The role of reexcision for positive margins in optimizing local disease control after breast-conserving surgery for cancer. Breast J 2006; 12(4):331–7
Swanson GP, Rynearson K, Symmonds R. Significance of margins of excision on breast cancer recurrence. Am J Clin Oncol 2002; 25(5):438–41
Cellini C, Huston TL, Martins D, et al. Multiple re-excisions versus mastectomy in patients with persistent residual disease following breast conservation surgery. Am J Surg 2005; 189(6):662–6
Mendez JE, Lamorte WW, de Las Morenas A, et al. Influence of breast cancer margin assessment method on the rates of positive margins and residual carcinoma. Am J Surg 2006; 192(4):538–40
Kaufman CS, Jacobson L, Bachman B, Kaufman L. Intraoperative ultrasound facilitates surgery for early breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2002; 9(10):988–93
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(10):994–8
Gittleman MA. Single-step ultrasound localization of breast lesions and lumpectomy procedure. Am J Surg 2003; 186(4):386–90
Inoue T, Tamaki Y, Sato Y, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound imaging of breast cancer by a real-time intraoperative navigation system. Breast Cancer 2005; 12(2):122–9
Rifkin MD, Schwartz GF, Pasto ME, et al. Ultrasound for guidance of breast mass removal. J Ultrasound Med 1988; 7(5):261–3
Paramo JC, Landeros M, McPhee MD, Mesko TW. Intraoperative Ultrasound-Guided Excision of Nonpalpable Breast Lesions. Breast J 1999; 5(6):389–94
Holland R, Connolly JL, Gelman R, et al. The presence of an extensive intraductal component following a limited excision correlates with prominent residual disease in the remainder of the breast. J Clin Oncol 1990; 8(1):113–8
Huston TL, Pigalarga R, Osborne MP, Tousimis E. The influence of additional surgical margins on the total specimen volume excised and the reoperative rate after breast-conserving surgery. Am J Surg 2006; 192(4):509–12
Van Goethem M, Tjalma W, Schelfout K, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2006; 32(9):901–10
Cassano E, Rizzo S, Bozzini A, et al. Contrast enhanced ultrasound of breast cancer. Cancer Imaging 2006; 6:4–6
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Haid, A., Knauer, M., Dunzinger, S. et al. Intra-operative Sonography: A Valuable Aid During Breast-Conserving Surgery for Occult Breast Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 14, 3090–3101 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-007-9490-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-007-9490-9