This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Thompson, M. Articles by Klimberg, V S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Thompson, M. Articles by Klimberg, V S.

Hematoma-Directed Ultrasound-Guided (HUG) Breast Lumpectomy

¹ Division of Breast Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, United States
² Department of Biostatistics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, United States
³ Department of Radiology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, United States
⁴ Department of Pathology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, United States

Correspondence: Address correspondence and reprint requests to: V. Suzanne Klimberg, MD; E-mail: klimbergsuzanne{at}uams.edu

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.

Key Words: Breast • Hematoma • Ultrasound • Biopsy • Lumpectomy

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. L. Rahman, S. Crawford, A. Larkin, and R. Quinlan Superiority of Sonographic Hematoma Guided Resection of Mammogram Only Visible Breast Cancer: Wire Localization Should be an Exception Not the Rule Ann. Surg. Oncol., August 1, 2007; 14(8): 2228 - 2232. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]