Literature DB >> 17058127

Hematoma-directed ultrasound-guided (HUG) breast lumpectomy.

Margaret Thompson1, Ronda Henry-Tillman, Aaron Margulies, Jeff Thostenson, Gwen Bryant-Smith, Robert Fincher, Soheila Korourian, V Suzanne Klimberg.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Needle localization breast biopsy (NLBB) is presently the primary means of localizing non-palpable lesions. Disadvantages of NLBB include vasovagal episodes, patient discomfort, and miss rates. Because hematomas naturally fill the cavity after vacuum-assisted breast biopsies (VABB), we hypothesized that ultrasound (US) could be used to find and accurately excise the actual biopsy site of non-palpable breast lesions without a needle.
METHODS: This is a retrospective study from January 2000 to July 2005. Electronic chart review identified patients with non-palpable breast lesions detected by means of mammogram who then underwent lumpectomy via NLBB or the hematoma-directed ultrasound-guided technique (HUG). HUG involved localizing the hematoma with a 7.5-MHz US probe and using the "line of sight" technique straight down toward the chest wall. A block of tissue encompassing the hematoma was then excised.
RESULTS: Localization procedures were performed in 186 patients-63 (34%) via needle localization and 123 (66%) via HUG. The previous VABB site in 100% of patients was successfully excised using HUG, 65 of 123 (53%) were benign and 58 of 123 (47%) were malignant; margins were positive in 13 of these 58 (22%). NLBB was successful in 100% of patients, 44 of 63 (70%) were benign and 19 of 63 (30%) were malignant; margins were positive in 14 of these 19 (73%). Margin positivity was significantly higher for NLBB than HUG (P = 0.0001, Fisher Exact).
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that HUG is more accurate in localizing non-palpable lesions than NLBB. By eliminating the additional procedure needed for NLBB, HUG may also be more time- and cost efficient. HUG makes VABB not only a less invasive diagnostic procedure, but also a localization procedure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17058127     DOI: 10.1245/s10434-006-9076-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1068-9265            Impact factor:   5.344


  10 in total

1.  Reoperation Rates in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ vs Invasive Breast Cancer After Wire-Guided Breast-Conserving Surgery.

Authors:  Linnea Langhans; Maj-Britt Jensen; Maj-Lis M Talman; Ilse Vejborg; Niels Kroman; Tove F Tvedskov
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2017-04-01       Impact factor: 14.766

Review 2.  Innovations in image-guided preoperative breast lesion localization.

Authors:  Ellen Cheang; Richard Ha; Cynthia M Thornton; Victoria L Mango
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-02-06       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Long-term outcomes after ROLL lumpectomy.

Authors:  H S J Ramesh; S Anguille; S Poonawala; O Harris; S Desmond; R Thind; L S Chagla; R A Audisio
Journal:  Indian J Surg Oncol       Date:  2010-08-07

4.  Effect of introducing hematoma ultrasound-guided lumpectomy in a surgical practice.

Authors:  Gregory Larrieux; Julie A Cupp; Junlin Liao; Carol E H Scott-Conner; Ronald J Weigel
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2012-05-24       Impact factor: 6.113

5.  Positive margin rates following breast-conserving surgery for stage I-III breast cancer: palpable versus nonpalpable tumors.

Authors:  Jordan Atkins; Fatema Al Mushawah; Catherine M Appleton; Amy E Cyr; William E Gillanders; Rebecca L Aft; Timothy J Eberlein; Feng Gao; Julie A Margenthaler
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2012-04-10       Impact factor: 2.192

Review 6.  Development of intraoperative assessment of margins in breast conserving surgery: a narrative review.

Authors:  Wanheng Li; Xiru Li
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2022-01

7.  Influence of surgical technique on mastectomy and reexcision rates in breast-conserving therapy for cancer.

Authors:  Alison Unzeitig; Anne Kobbermann; Xian-Jin Xie; Jingsheng Yan; David Euhus; Yan Peng; Venetia Sarode; Amy Moldrem; A Marilyn Leitch; Valerie Andrews; Roshni Rao
Journal:  Int J Surg Oncol       Date:  2012-01-16

Review 8.  Preoperative localization and surgical margins in conservative breast surgery.

Authors:  F Corsi; L Sorrentino; D Bossi; A Sartani; D Foschi
Journal:  Int J Surg Oncol       Date:  2013-08-05

9.  A comprehensive evaluation of the 8-gauge vacuum-assisted Mammotome(R) system for ultrasound-guided diagnostic biopsy and selective excision of breast lesions.

Authors:  Stephen P Povoski; Rafael E Jimenez
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2007-07-30       Impact factor: 2.754

10.  Intraoperative ultrasound reduces the need for re-excision in breast-conserving surgery.

Authors:  Hasan Karanlik; Ilker Ozgur; Dilek Sahin; Merdan Fayda; Semen Onder; Ekrem Yavuz
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2015-11-24       Impact factor: 2.754

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.