Top

Published in:

01-08-2013 | Review

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

Authors: M. Ahmed, M. Douek

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 3/2013

Abstract

Introduction The current standard of treatment for non-palpable breast cancers is wire-guided localization (WGL). WGL has its drawbacks and alternatives such as radio-guided surgery (RGL) and intra-operative ultrasound (IOUS) have been developed. The clinical effectiveness of all forms of RGL has been assessed against WGL in previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We performed the first systematic review and meta-analysis of IOUS in the management of non-palpable breast cancers. Methods Studies were considered eligible for inclusion in this systematic review if they (1) assessed the role of surgeon-performed IOUS for the treatment of non-palpable breast cancers and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and (2) specified surgical margin excision status. Those studies, which were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies with comparison WGL groups were included in the meta-analysis. For those studies included in the meta-analysis, pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using fixed-effects analyses and random-effects analyses in case of statistically significant heterogeneity (p < 0.05). Results Eighteen studies reported data on IOUS in 1,328 patients with non-palpable breast cancer and DCIS. Nine cohort studies with control WGL groups and one RCT were included in the meta-analysis. Successful localization rates varied between 95 and 100 % in all studies and there was a statistically significant difference in the rates of involved surgical margins in favour of IOUS with pooled OR 0.52 (95 % CI 0.38–0.71). Conclusion Compared with WGL, IOUS reduces involved surgical margin rates. Adequately powered RCTs are required to validate these findings.

Lovrics PJ, Cornacchi SD, Farrokhyar F, Garnett A, Chen V, Franic S, Simunovic M (2009) The relationship between surgical factors and margin status after breast-conservation surgery for early stage breast cancer. Am J Surg 197(6):740–746PubMedCrossRef

Sajid MS, Parampalli U, Haider Z, Bonomi R (2012) Comparison of radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) and wire localization for non-palpable breast cancers: a meta-analysis. J Surg Oncol 105(8):852–858PubMedCrossRef

Ocal K, Dag A, Turkmenoglu O, Gunay EC, Yucel E, Duce MN (2011) Radioguided occult lesion localization versus wire-guided localization for non-palpable breast lesions: randomized controlled trial. Clinics 66(6):1003–1007PubMedCrossRef

Moreno M, Wiltgen JE, Bodanese B, Schmitt RL, Gutfilen B, da Fonseca LM (2008) Radioguided breast surgery for occult lesion localization—correlation between two methods. J Exp Clin Cancer Res CR 27:29CrossRef

Medina-Franco H, Abarca-Perez L, Garcia-Alvarez MN, Ulloa-Gomez JL, Romero-Trejo C, Sepulveda-Mendez J (2008) Radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) versus wire-guided lumpectomy for non-palpable breast lesions: a randomized prospective evaluation. J Surg Oncol 97(2):108–111PubMedCrossRef

Postma EL, Koffijberg H, Verkooijen HM, Witkamp AJ, van den Bosch MA, van Hillegersberg R (2013) Cost-effectiveness of radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) versus wire-guided localization (WGL) in breast conserving surgery for nonpalpable breast cancer: results from a randomized controlled multicenter trial. Ann Surg Oncol

Rahusen FD (2002) Ultrasound-guided lumpectomy of nonpalpable breast cancer versus wire-guided resection: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg Oncol 9(10):994–998PubMedCrossRef

Krekel NM, Zonderhuis BM, Stockmann HB, Schreurs WH, van der Veen H, de Lange de Klerk ES, Meijer S, van den Tol MP (2011) A comparison of three methods for nonpalpable breast cancer excision. Eur J Surg Oncol J Eur Soc Surg Oncol Br Assoc Surg Oncol 37(2):109–115CrossRef

James TA, Harlow S, Sheehey-Jones J, Hart M, Gaspari C, Stanley M, Krag D, Ashikaga T, McCahill LE (2009) Intraoperative ultrasound versus mammographic needle localization for ductal carcinoma in situ. Ann Surg Oncol 16(5):1164–1169PubMedCrossRef

10.

Haid A, Knauer M, Dunzinger S, Jasarevic Z, Koberle-Wuhrer R, Schuster A, Toeppker M, Haid B, Wenzl E, Offner F (2007) Intra-operative sonography: a valuable aid during breast-conserving surgery for occult breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 14(11):3090–3101PubMedCrossRef

11.

Bennett IC, Greenslade J, Chiam H (2005) Intraoperative ultrasound-guided excision of nonpalpable breast lesions. World J Surg 29(3):369–374PubMedCrossRef

12.

Barentsz MW, van Dalen T, Gobardhan PD, Bongers V, Perre CI, Pijnappel RM, van den Bosch MA, Verkooijen HM (2012) 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 135(1):209–219PubMedCrossRef

13.

Arentz C, Baxter K, Boneti C, Henry-Tillman R, Westbrook K, Korourian S, Klimberg VS (2010) Ten-year experience with hematoma-directed ultrasound-guided (HUG) breast lumpectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 17(Suppl 3):378–383PubMedCrossRef

14.

Buman SJ, Clark DA (2005) Breast intraoperative ultrasound: prospective study in 112 patients with impalpable lesions. ANZ J Surg 75(3):124–127PubMedCrossRef

15.

Jeevan R, Cromwell DA, Trivella M, Lawrence G, Kearins O, Pereira J, Sheppard C, Caddy CM, van der Meulen JH (2012) Reoperation rates after breast conserving surgery for breast cancer among women in England: retrospective study of hospital episode statistics. BMJ 345:e4505PubMedCrossRef

16.

The Nordic Cochrane Centre CC (2008) Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.0. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen

17.

von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, Initiative S (2007) The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 370(9596):1453–1457CrossRef

18.

Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I (2005) Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13PubMedCrossRef

19.

Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) (2008) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Version 5.0.0 (updated February 2008). The Cochrane Collaboration

20.

Demets DL (1987) Methods for combining randomized clinical trials: strengths and limitations. Stat Med 6(3):341–350PubMedCrossRef

21.

DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7(3):177–188PubMedCrossRef

22.

Higgins JP, Thompson SG (2002) Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21(11):1539–1558PubMedCrossRef

23.

Fortunato L, Penteriani R, Farina M, Vitelli CE, Piro FR (2008) Intraoperative ultrasound is an effective and preferable technique to localize non-palpable breast tumors. Eur J Surg Oncol J Eur Soc Surg Oncol Br Assoc Surg Oncol 34(12):1289–1292CrossRef

24.

Harlow SP, Krag DN, Ames SE, Weaver DL (1999) Intraoperative ultrasound localization to guide surgical excision of nonpalpable breast carcinoma. J Am Coll Surg 189(3):241–246PubMedCrossRef

25.

Kaufman CS, Jacobson L, Bachman B, Kaufman LB (2003) Intraoperative ultrasonography guidance is accurate and efficient according to results in 100 breast cancer patients. Am J Surg 186(4):378–382PubMedCrossRef

26.

Ngo C, Pollet AG, Laperrelle J, Ackerman G, Gomme S, Thibault F, Fourchotte V, Salmon RJ (2007) Intraoperative ultrasound localization of nonpalpable breast cancers. Ann Surg Oncol 14(9):2485–2489PubMedCrossRef

27.

Potter S, Govindarajulu S, Cawthorn SJ, Sahu AK (2007) Accuracy of sonographic localisation and specimen ultrasound performed by surgeons in impalpable screen-detected breast lesions. Breast 16(4):425–428PubMedCrossRef

28.

Ramos M, Diaz JC, Ramos T, Ruano R, Aparicio M, Sancho M, Gonzalez-Orus JM (2012) Ultrasound-guided excision combined with intraoperative assessment of gross macroscopic margins decreases the rate of reoperations for non-palpable invasive breast cancer. Breast

29.

Smith LF, Henry-Tillman R, Rubio IT, Korourian S, Klimberg VS (2001) Intraoperative localization after stereotactic breast biopsy without a needle. Am J Surg 182(6):584–589PubMedCrossRef

30.

Paramo JC, Landeros M, McPhee MD, Mesko TW (1999) Intraoperative ultrasound-guided excision of nonpalpable breast lesions. Breast J 5(6):389–394PubMedCrossRef

31.

Rahusen FD, Taets van Amerongen AH, van Diest PJ, Borgstein PJ, Bleichrodt RP, Meijer S (1999) Ultrasound-guided lumpectomy of nonpalpable breast cancers: a feasibility study looking at the accuracy of obtained margins. J Surg Oncol 72(2):72–76PubMedCrossRef

32.

Snider HC Jr, Morrison DG (1999) Intraoperative ultrasound localization of nonpalpable breast lesions. Ann Surg Oncol 6(3):308–314PubMedCrossRef

33.

Houssami N, Macaskill P, Marinovich ML, Dixon JM, Irwig L, Brennan ME, Solin LJ (2010) Meta-analysis of the impact of surgical margins on local recurrence in women with early-stage invasive breast cancer treated with breast-conserving therapy. Eur J Cancer 46(18):3219–3232PubMedCrossRef

34.

Postma EL, Verkooijen HM, van Esser S, Hobbelink MG, van der Schelling GP, Koelemij R, Witkamp AJ, Contant C, van Diest PJ, Willems SM et al (2012) Efficacy of ‘radioguided occult lesion localisation’ (ROLL) versus ‘wire-guided localisation’ (WGL) in breast conserving surgery for non-palpable breast cancer: a randomised controlled multicentre trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 136(2):469–478PubMedCrossRef

35.

Haloua MH, Krekel NM, Coupe VM, Bosmans JE, Lopes Cardozo AM, Meijer S, van den Tol MP (2013) Ultrasound-guided surgery for palpable breast cancer is cost-saving: results of a cost–benefit analysis. Breast

36.

Cochrane RA, Valasiadou P, Wilson AR, Al-Ghazal SK, Macmillan RD (2003) Cosmesis and satisfaction after breast-conserving surgery correlates with the percentage of breast volume excised. Br J Surg 90(12):1505–1509PubMedCrossRef

37.

Taylor ME, Perez CA, Halverson KJ, Kuske RR, Philpott GW, Garcia DM, Mortimer JE, Myerson RJ, Radford D, Rush C (1995) Factors influencing cosmetic results after conservation therapy for breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 31(4):753–764PubMedCrossRef

38.

Vrieling C, Collette L, Fourquet A, Hoogenraad WJ, Horiot JH, Jager JJ, Pierart M, Poortmans PM, Struikmans H, Maat B et al (2000) 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 J Eur Soc Ther Radiol Oncol 55(3):219–232CrossRef

39.

Clough KB, Lewis JS, Couturaud B, Fitoussi A, Nos C, Falcou MC (2003) Oncoplastic techniques allow extensive resections for breast-conserving therapy of breast carcinomas. Ann Surg 237(1):26–34PubMedCrossRef

40.

Petit JY, Garusi C, Greuse M, Rietiens M, Youssef O, Luini A, De Lorenzi F (2002) One hundred and eleven cases of breast conservation treatment with simultaneous reconstruction at the European Institute of Oncology (Milan). Tumori 88(1):41–47PubMed

41.

Woerdeman LAE, Hage JJ, Thio EA, Zoetmulder FAN, Rutgers EJTh (2004) Breast-conserving therapy in patients with a relatively large (T2 or T3) breast cancer: long-term local control and cosmetic outcome of a feasibility study. Plast Reconstr Surg 113(6):1607–1616PubMedCrossRef

42.

Krekel NM, Lopes Cardozo AM, Muller S, Bergers E, Meijer S, van den Tol MP, Krekel NM (2011) Optimising surgical accuracy in palpable breast cancer with intra-operative breast ultrasound—feasibility and surgeons’ learning curve. Eur J Surg Oncol J Eur Soc Surg Oncol Br Assoc Surg Oncol 37(12):1044–1050CrossRef

43.

Krekel NMA, Haloua MH, Lopes Cardozo AMF, de Wit RH, Bosch AM, de Widt-Levert LM, Muller S, van der Veen H, Bergers E, de Lange de Klerk ESM et al (2013) Intraoperative ultrasound guidance for palpable breast cancer excision (COBALT trial): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 14(1):48–54PubMedCrossRef

Title: Intra-operative ultrasound versus wire-guided localization in the surgical management of non-palpable breast cancers: systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors: M. Ahmed
M. Douek
Publication date: 01-08-2013
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 3/2013
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-013-2639-2

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2013

Defining a threshold for intervention in breast cancer-related lymphedema: what level of arm volume increase predicts progression?

Therapeutic effect of β-blockers in triple-negative breast cancer postmenopausal women

Everolimus: side effect profile and management of toxicities in breast cancer

Clinical outcomes following nipple–areola-sparing mastectomy with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction: a 12-year experience with an analysis of patient and breast-related factors for complications

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with breast cancer: trends, predictors, and areas for future research

HIF-1 is involved in the negative regulation of AURKA expression in breast cancer cell lines under hypoxic conditions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer