Annals of Surgical Oncology Cite Track
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
10.1245/s10434-007-9422-8
Annals of Surgical Oncology 14:2228-2232 (2007)
© 2007 Society of Surgical Oncology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rahman, R. L.
Right arrow Articles by Quinlan, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rahman, R. L.
Right arrow Articles by Quinlan, R.

Original Article

Superiority of Sonographic Hematoma Guided Resection of Mammogram Only Visible Breast Cancer: Wire Localization Should be an Exception—Not the Rule

Rakhshanda Layeequr Rahman, MD, Sybil Crawford, MD, Anne Larkin, MD and Robert Quinlan, MD

UMass Memorial Health Care, Worcester, Massachussetts, USA

Correspondence: Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Rakhshanda Layeequr Rahman, MD; E-mail: layeequr{at}ummhc.org

Background: The goal of breast conservation in cancer treatment is to obtain adequate margins with minimum tissue loss to achieve acceptable oncologic and cosmetic outcome. The standard for resection of breast cancers visible only on mammogram is wire localization (WL), which has a high rate of positive margins. We hypothesized that sonographic hematoma guided (SHG) resection achieves better margin clearance while minimizing volume of resection by more accurate lesion localization.

Methods: This retrospective study was conducted at the University Comprehensive Breast Center. Consecutive patients over the span of one year, undergoing breast conservation for stereotactic biopsy proven cancers that were not visualized on ultrasound were studied. SHG and WL technique were compared for age, mammographic abnormality, and tumor characteristics. Outcome variables included closest margin of resection, volume of resection, resection index (resection volume/tumor volume), and rate of margin revision.

Results: Forty-five patients had SHG, while 51 had WL lumpectomy. The SHG and WL groups were similar in age, mammographic abnormality, tumor type, and stage. Median (25th–75th centile) tumor size was larger in SHG group vs WL group [1.2 (1.1–1.3) vs 0.8 (0.4–1.4) cm; P = .009]. Median (25th–75th centile) closest margin in SHG vs WL group was 5.0 (5.0–8.0) vs 4.0 (1.0–10) mm [P = .0041]. Median (25th–75th centile) resection volume in SHG vs WL group was 85.0 (60.0–128.0) vs 142.2 (54.4–229.0) cm3 [P = .0127]. Median (25th–75th centile) resection index in SHG vs WL group was 77.3 (59.3–285.7) vs 337.1 (88.9–3982.2) [P = .0004]. Margin was revised in 2 (4.4%) SHG vs 8 (15.7%) WL patients [P = .0978].

Conclusion: Sonographic hematoma guided lumpectomy is superior to wire localization in obtaining adequate margins with minimal volume of resection.

Key Words: Resection techinque • Ultrasound breast






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2007 by the Society of Surgical Oncology.