Top

Published in:

14-07-2022 | Ultrasound | Original Article

Comparison of Wire-Guided Lumpectomy (WGL) Versus Hematoma-Directed Ultrasound-Guided Lumpectomy (HDUGL) in Management of Nonpalpable Breast Lesions in Achieving a Negative Resection Margin: a Randomized Trial with Superiority Hypothesis and Cost-effectiveness Analysis

Published in: Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology | Issue 4/2022

Abstract

The advances in imaging techniques and growing awareness have increased the detection of nonpalpable breast lesions, which may be neoplastic or high-risk lesions. The standard technique of localizing these nonpalpable breast lesions is wire-guided biopsy/lumpectomy. However, wire-guided excision is fraught with the complications of migration, transection, patient discomfort, pneumothorax, vasovagal episodes, and injury to the radiologist, surgeon, and pathologist. We embarked upon a randomized controlled trial to compare the cost-effectiveness and patient-reported outcome (PRO) with hematoma-directed ultrasound-guided lumpectomy (HDUGL) versus conventional wire-guided lumpectomy (WGL) for nonpalpable breast lesions. This study was a parallel design, randomized controlled trial with a superiority hypothesis. Twenty-five patients could be randomized to wire-guided lumpectomy (WGL) group (n = 13) and hematoma-directed ultrasound-guided lumpectomy (HDUGL) group (n = 12). Post-excision specimen sonography and mammography for assessing adequacy of margin were done. A margin shave was performed in cases of close or suspicious margin on ultrasonography or mammogram. Both the groups were comparable in age, tumor size, histological subtypes, and location of lesions. The median resection volume in two groups was 34.5 (26.5) ml for HDUGL vs. 41 (15) ml for WGL. Intraoperative cavity shave was required only in the WGL group (n = 3.23%) and margin positivity was also more in the WGL group (n = 2,15.38%) as compared to the HDUGL group (n = 1,8.33%) but neither differences in cavity shave nor positive margins leading to re-operations were statistically significant. The difference in cost of surgery in two groups (INR 4680 ± 560.00 for HDUGL and INR 7486 ± 616.41 for WGL) was statistically significant (P = 0.00). Resultantly, HDUGL was more cost-effective (INR 5105.45) than WGL (INR 8847.09). Patients in the HDUGL group were more satisfied according to the Likert scale of 5 but this difference in two groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.07). The hematoma-directed ultrasound-guided lumpectomy (HDUGL) is better than wire-guided lumpectomy (WGL) for nonpalpable breast lesions in terms of cost-effectiveness. Trial details: CTRI No. CTRI/2019/05/019347. Registered on 24/05/2019, Registered prospectively.

Nothacker M, Duda V, Hahn M et al (2009) Early detection of breast cancer: benefits and risks of supplemental breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with mammographically dense breast tissue. A systematic review. BMC Cancer 9:335. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-9-335CrossRef

Layeequr Rahman R, Iuanow E, Crawford S, Quinlan R (2007) Sonographic hematoma-guided vs wire-localized lumpectomy for breast cancer: a comparison of margins and volume of resection. Arch Surg 142(4):343–346. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.142.4.343CrossRef

Louie L, Velez N, Earnest D, Staren ED (2003) Management of nonpalpable ultrasound-indeterminate breast lesions. Surgery 134(4):667–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0039-6060(03)00318-0 (discussion 673-4)CrossRef

Rissanen TJ, Mäkäräinen HP, Mattila SI, Karttunen AI, Kiviniemi HO, Kallioinen MJ et al (1993) Wire localized biopsy of breast lesions: a review of 425 cases found in screening or clinical mammography. Clin Radiol 47(1):14–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0009-9260(05)81207-3CrossRef

Helvie MA, Ikeda DM, Adler DD (1991) Localization and needle aspiration of breast lesions: complications in 370 cases. AJR Am J Roentgenol 157(4):711–714. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.157.4.1892023CrossRef

Homer MJ (1983) Transection of the localization hooked wire during breast biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 141(5):929–930. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.141.5.929CrossRef

Bristol JB, Jones PA (1981) Transgression of localizing wire into the pleural cavity prior to mammography. Br J Radiol 54(638):139–140. https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-54-638-139CrossRef

Davis PS, Wechsler RJ, Feig SA, March DE (1988) Migration of breast biopsy localization wire. AJR Am J Roentgenol 150(4):787–788. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.150.4.787CrossRef

Snider HC Jr, Morrison DG (1999) Intraoperative ultrasound localization of nonpalpable breast lesions. Ann Surg Oncol 6(3):308–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10434-999-0308-9CrossRef

10.

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):72–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1096-9098(199910)72:2%3c72::aid-jso6%3e3.0.co;2-mCrossRef

11.

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):241–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1072-7515(99)00156-8CrossRef

12.

Rahusen FD, Bremers AJ, Fabry HF, van Amerongen AH, Boom RP, Meijer S (2002) Ultrasound-guided lumpectomy of nonpalpable breast cancer versus wire-guided resection: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg Oncol 9(10):994–998. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02574518CrossRef

13.

Smith LF, Henry-Tillman R, Harms S, Hronas T, Mancino AT, Westbrook KC et al (2001) Hematoma-directed ultrasound-guided breast biopsy. Ann Surg 233(5):669–675. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-200105000-00011CrossRef

14.

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):584–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9610(01)00790-5CrossRef

15.

Kass R, Kumar G, Klimberg VS, Kass L, Henry-Tillman R, Johnson A et al (2002) Clip migration in stereotactic biopsy. Am J Surg 184(4):325–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9610(02)00952-2CrossRef

16.

Esserman LE, Cura MA, DaCosta D (2004) Recognizing pitfalls in early and late migration of clip markers after imaging-guided directional vacuum-assisted biopsy. Radiographics 24(1):147–56. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.241035052CrossRef

17.

Kaufman CS, Delbecq R, Jacobson L (1998) Excising the reexcision: stereotactic core-needle biopsy decreases need for reexcision of breast cancer. World J Surg 22(10):1023–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002689900510 (discussion 1028)CrossRef

18.

Cangiarella J, Gross J, Symmans WF, Waisman J, Petersen B, D'Angelo D et al. The incidence of positive margins with breast conserving therapy following Mammotome biopsy for microcalcification. Journ Surg Oncol 74(4): 263–266. https://doi.org/10.1002/1096-9098(200008)74:4<263::AID-JSO4>3.0.CO;2-1

19.

Acosta JA, Greenlee JA, Gubler KD, Goepfert CJ, Ragland JJ (1995) Surgical margins after needle-localization breast biopsy. Am J Surg 170(6):643–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9610(99)80033-6 (discussion 645-6)CrossRef

20.

Nadeem R, Chagla LS, Harris O, Desmond S, Thind R, Flavin A et al (2005) Tumour localisation with a metal coil before the administration of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. Breast 14(5):403–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2004.11.007CrossRef

21.

Oh JL, Nguyen G, Whitman GJ, Hunt KK, Yu TK, Woodward WA et al (2007) Placement of radiopaque clips for tumor localization in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy and breast conservation therapy. Cancer 110(11):2420–2427. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23068CrossRef

22.

Ahmed M, Douek M (2013) Radioactive seed localisation (RSL) in the treatment of non-palpable breast cancers: systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast 22(4):383–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2013.04.016CrossRef

23.

Jakub JW, Gray RJ, Degnim AC, Boughey JC, Gardner M, Cox CE (2010) Current status of radioactive seed for localization of non palpable breast lesions. Am J Surg 199(4):522–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.05.019CrossRef

24.

In ’t Hout BA, Schenk KE, van der Linden AN, Roumen RM (2016) Efficacy of localization of non-palpable, invasive breast cancer: wire localization vs. Iodine-125 seed: a historical comparison. Breast 29(8):13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2016.06.011CrossRef

25.

Krekel NM, Zonderhuis BM, Stockmann HB, Schreurs WH, van der Veen H, de Lange de Klerk ES et al (2011) A comparison of three methods for nonpalpable breast cancer excision. Eur J Surg Oncol 37(2):109–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2010.12.006CrossRef

26.

Green DH (2009) Needle placement accuracy during stereotactic localization mammography. Clinic Radiol 64(10):1009–1014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2009.06.001CrossRef

27.

Larrieux G, Cupp JA, Liao J, Carol EH, Weigel RJ (2012) Effect of introducing hematoma ultrasound-guided lumpectomy in a surgical practice. J Am Coll Surg 215(2):237–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.04.018CrossRef

28.

Thompson M, Henry-Tillman R, Margulies A, Thostenson J, Bryant-Smith G, Fincher R et al (2007) Hematoma-directed ultrasound-guided (HUG) breast lumpectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 14(1):148–156. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-006-9076-yCrossRef

29.

Arentz C, Baxter K, Boneti C, Henry-Tillman R, Westbrook K, Korourian S et al (2010) Ten-year experience with hematoma-directed ultrasound-guided (HUG) breast lumpectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 17(Suppl 3):378–383. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-1230-xCrossRef

30.

Inui H, Watatani M, Hashimoto Y, Hojo T, Hirai K, Yamato M et al (2008) Hematoma-directed and ultrasound-guided breast-conserving surgery for nonpalpable breast cancer after Mammotome biopsy. Surg Today 38(3):279–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-007-3595-4CrossRef

Title: Comparison of Wire-Guided Lumpectomy (WGL) Versus Hematoma-Directed Ultrasound-Guided Lumpectomy (HDUGL) in Management of Nonpalpable Breast Lesions in Achieving a Negative Resection Margin: a Randomized Trial with Superiority Hypothesis and Cost-effectiveness Analysis
Publication date: 14-07-2022
Keywords: Ultrasound
Hematoma
Ultrasound
Published in: Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology / Issue 4/2022
Print ISSN: 0975-7651
Electronic ISSN: 0976-6952
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13193-022-01582-y

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Comparison of Wire-Guided Lumpectomy (WGL) Versus Hematoma-Directed Ultrasound-Guided Lumpectomy (HDUGL) in Management of Nonpalpable Breast Lesions in Achieving a Negative Resection Margin: a Randomized Trial with Superiority Hypothesis and Cost-effectiveness Analysis

Abstract

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 4/2022

Anti-cancer Activity of Chrysin in Cancer Therapy: a Systematic Review

Survival and Quality of Life (QoL) Enhancing Effect of Surgery in Larynx and Hypopharynx Cancers

Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy by Lymphatic Flare Technique: a Feasibility Study—“The FLAIR Is in the FLARE”

An Unusual Stomach Tumour: Plexiform Angiomyxoid Fibroma Stomach—A Case Report

Laparoscopic vs Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy—an Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials

Peri-operative, Functional, Quality of Life, and Oncological Outcomes After Robot-Assisted Radical Cystectomy and Intra-corporeal Orthotopic Ileal Neobladder—Our Experience