Intraoperative Ultrasound-Guided Excision of Non-Palpable and Palpable Breast Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Wire-guided localization (WGL) is the most frequently used localization technique in non-palpable breast cancer (BC). However, low negative margin rates, patient discomfort, and the possibility of wire dislocation have been discussed as potential disadvantages, and re-operation due to positive margins may increase relapse risk. Intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS)-guided excision allows direct visualization of the lesion and the resection volume and reduces positive margins in palpable and non-palpable tumors. We performed a systematic review on IOUS in breast cancer and 2 meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). In non-palpable BC, 3 RCTs have shown higher negative margin rates in the IOUS arm compared to WGL. Meta-analysis confirmed a significant difference between IOUS and WGL in terms of positive margins favoring IOUS (risk ratio 4.34, p < 0.0001, I2 = 0%). 41 cohort studies including 3291 patients were identified, of which most reported higher negative margin and lower re-operation rates if IOUS was used. In palpable BC, IOUS was compared to palpation-guided excision in 3 RCTs. Meta-analysis showed significantly higher rates of positive margins in the palpation arm (risk ratio 2.84, p = 0.0047, I2 = 0%). In 13 cohort studies including 942 patients with palpable BC, negative margin rates were higher if IOUS was used, and tissue volumes were higher in palpation-guided cohorts in most studies. IOUS is a safe noninvasive technique for the localization of sonographically visible tumors that significantly improves margin rates in palpable and non-palpable BC. Surgeons should be encouraged to acquire ultrasound skills and participate in breast ultrasound training.

Zusammenfassung

Drahtlokalisation stellt die am häufigsten verwendete Lokalisationsmethode bei nicht palpablen Mammakarzinomen dar. Zu potenziellen Nachteilen der Technik gehören eine niedrige Rate an R0-Resektionen, die Invasivität und das Risiko der Drahtdislokation. Des Weiteren ist die Notwendigkeit einer Re-Operation mit einem erhöhten Rezidivrisiko assoziiert. Intraoperative Sonografie (IOUS) erlaubt eine direkte Visualisierung der Läsion und des Resektionsvolumens und reduziert die Rate an positiven Rändern bei palpablen und nicht palpablen Tumoren. Wir führten ein systematisches Review der Studien zur IOUS durch. Die randomisierten Studien wurden in 2 Metaanalysen ausgewertet. In nicht palpablen Mammakarzinomen zeigten3 randomisierte Studien höhere R0-Resektionsraten im IOUS-Arm, verglichen mit Drahtlokalisation. Der signifikante Unterschied konnte in der Metaanalyse bestätigt werden (Risk Ratio 4,34, p < 0,0001, I2 = 0%). Die meisten der 41 Kohortenstudien mit 3291 Patientinnen zeigten höhere R0-Resektionsraten und niedrigere Nachresektionsraten bei Verwendung von IOUS. Eine Metaanalyse von 3 randomisierten Studien bei palpablem Mammakarzinom zeigte signifikant höhere Raten an positiven Rändern im Palpations-Arm (Risk Ratio 2,84, p = 0,0047, I2 = 0%). In 13 Kohortenstudien mit 942 Patientinnen mit palpablem Mammakarzinom, waren die R0-Resektionsraten meist höher und die Gewebsvolumina niedriger, bei Verwendung von IOUS. IOUS ist eine sichere nicht invasive Technik zur Lokalisation von sonografisch sichtbaren Tumoren und verbessert R0-Resektionsraten bei palpablem und nicht palpablem Mammakarzinom. Sonografische Weiterbildung für Brustoperateure erscheint empfehlenswert.

Keywords

breast cancer - intraoperative ultrasound - wire-guided localization - resection margins - reoperation rate

Publication History

Received: 07 October 2021

Accepted after revision: 29 March 2022

Article published online:
27 June 2022

• References

• 1 Annual Report 2020 of the Certified Breast Cancer Centres (BCCs), Audit year 2019/indicator year 2018. Berlin, Germany, in cooperation with OnkoZert, Neu-Ulm, Germany: Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft/German Cancer Society; 2020
• 2 Morrow M, Abrahamse P, Hofer TP. et al. Trends in Reoperation After Initial Lumpectomy for Breast Cancer: Addressing Overtreatment in Surgical Management. JAMA Oncol 2017; 3: 1352-1357 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.0774. (PMID: 28586788)
• 3 Fisher S, Yasui Y, Dabbs K. et al. Re-excision and survival following breast conserving surgery in early stage breast cancer patients: a population-based study. BMC Health Serv Res 2018; 18: 94 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-018-2882-7. (PMID: 29422097)
• 4 Pataky RE, Baliski CR. Reoperation costs in attempted breast-conserving surgery: a decision analysis. Curr Oncol 2016; 23: 314-321 DOI: 10.3747/co.23.2989. (PMID: 27803595)
• 5 Hennigs A, Fuchs V, Sinn HP. et al. Do Patients After Reexcision Due to Involved or Close Margins Have the Same Risk of Local Recurrence as Those After One-Step Breast-Conserving Surgery?. Ann Surg Oncol 2016; 23: 1831-1837 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-015-5067-1. (PMID: 26732272)
• 6 Pan H, Wu N, Ding H. et al. Intraoperative ultrasound guidance is associated with clear lumpectomy margins for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2013; 8: e74028 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074028. (PMID: 24073200)
• 7 Ahmed M, Douek M. Intra-operative ultrasound versus wire-guided localization in the surgical management of non-palpable breast cancers: systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013; 140: 435-446 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-013-2639-2. (PMID: 23877340)
• 8 Rubio IT, Henry-Tillman R, Klimberg VS. Surgical use of breast ultrasound. Surg Clin North Am 2003; 83: 771-788 DOI: 10.1016/S0039-6109(03)00070-7. (PMID: 12875595)
• 9 Layeequr Rahman R, Puckett Y, Habrawi Z. et al. A decade of intraoperative ultrasound guided breast conservation for margin negative resection – Radioactive, and magnetic, and Infrared Oh My. Am J Surg 2020; 220: 1410-1416 DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2020.09.008.
• 10 Kasem I, Mokbel K. Savi Scout(R) Radar Localisation of Non-palpable Breast Lesions: Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis of 842 Cases. Anticancer Res 2020; 40: 3633-3643 DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.14352. (PMID: 32620602)
• 11 Lowes S, Bell A, Milligan R. et al. Use of Hologic LOCalizer radiofrequency identification (RFID) tags to localise impalpable breast lesions and axillary nodes: experience of the first 150 cases in a UK breast unit. Clin Radiol 2020; 75: 942-949 DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2020.08.014. (PMID: 32919756)
• 12 Chan BK, Wiseberg-Firtell JA, Jois RH. et al. Localization techniques for guided surgical excision of non-palpable breast lesions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; CD009206 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009206.pub2. (PMID: 26718728)
• 13 Hu X, Li S, Jiang Y. et al. Intraoperative ultrasound-guided lumpectomy versus wire-guided excision for nonpalpable breast cancer. J Int Med Res 2020; 48 DOI: 10.1177/0300060519896707. (PMID: 31937169)
• 14 Sanders LM, Morgan D, Polini N. et al. Preoperative Wire Localization of the Breast on the Day Before Surgery. J Breast Imaging 2020; 2: 240-249 DOI: 10.1093/jbi/wbaa015.
• 15 Cheang E, Ha R, Thornton CM. et al. Innovations in image-guided preoperative breast lesion localization. Br J Radiol 2018; 91 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20170740 . (PMID: 29271240)
• 16 Hoffmann J, Marx M, Hengstmann A. et al. Ultrasound-Assisted Tumor Surgery in Breast Cancer – A Prospective, Randomized, Single-Center Study (MAC 001). Ultraschall in Med 2019; 40: 326-332 DOI: 10.1055/a-0637-1725. (PMID: 29975969)
• 17 Rahusen FD, Bremers AJ, Fabry HF. et al. Ultrasound-guided lumpectomy of nonpalpable breast cancer versus wire-guided resection: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg Oncol 2002; 9: 994-998 DOI: 10.1007/BF02574518. (PMID: 12464592)
• 18 Krekel NM, Zonderhuis BM, Stockmann HB. et al. A comparison of three methods for nonpalpable breast cancer excision. Eur J Surg Oncol 2011; 37: 109-115 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2010.12.006. (PMID: 21194880)
• 19 Rubio IT, Esgueva-Colmenarejo A, Espinosa-Bravo M. et al. Intraoperative Ultrasound-Guided Lumpectomy Versus Mammographic Wire Localization for Breast Cancer Patients After Neoadjuvant Treatment. Ann Surg Oncol 2016; 23: 38-43 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-015-4935-z. (PMID: 26514120)
• 20 Ramos M, Diez JC, Ramos T. et al. Intraoperative ultrasound in conservative surgery for non-palpable breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Int J Surg 2014; 12: 572-577 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.04.003. (PMID: 24735893)
• 21 Krekel NM, Haloua MH, Lopes Cardozo AM. et al. Intraoperative ultrasound guidance for palpable breast cancer excision (COBALT trial): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2013; 14: 48-54 DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70527-2.
• 22 Krishna KL, Srinath BS, Santosh D. et al. A comparative study of perioperative techniques to attain negative margins and spare healthy breast tissue in breast conserving surgery. Breast Dis 2020; 39: 127-135 DOI: 10.3233/BD-200443. (PMID: 32831188)
• 23 Vispute T, SuhaniSeenu V. et al. Comparison of resection margins and cosmetic outcome following intraoperative ultrasound-guided excision versus conventional palpation-guided breast conservation surgery in breast cancer: A randomized controlled trial. Indian J Cancer 2018; 55: 361-365 DOI: 10.4103/ijc.IJC_2_18. (PMID: 30829271)
• 24 Volders JH, Haloua MH, Krekel NM. et al. Intraoperative ultrasound guidance in breast-conserving surgery shows superiority in oncological outcome, long-term cosmetic and patient-reported outcomes: Final outcomes of a randomized controlled trial (COBALT). Eur J Surg Oncol 2017; 43: 649-657 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.11.004. (PMID: 27916314)
• 25 Volders JH, Negenborn VL, Haloua MH. et al. Breast-specific factors determine cosmetic outcome and patient satisfaction after breast-conserving therapy: Results from the randomized COBALT study. J Surg Oncol 2018; 117: 1001-1008 DOI: 10.1002/jso.25012. (PMID: 29473960)
• 26 Eggemann H, Ignatov T, Beni A. et al. Ultrasonography-guided breast-conserving surgery is superior to palpation-guided surgery for palpable breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer 2014; 14: 40-45 DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2013.08.016. (PMID: 24169374)
• 27 Eggemann H, Costa SD, Ignatov A. Ultrasound-Guided Versus Wire-Guided Breast-Conserving Surgery for Nonpalpable Breast Cancer. Clin Breast Cancer 2016; 16: e1-e6 DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2015.09.001. (PMID: 26439275)
• 28 Karanlik H, Ozgur I, Sahin D. et al. Intraoperative ultrasound reduces the need for re-excision in breast-conserving surgery. World J Surg Oncol 2015; 13: 321 DOI: 10.1186/s12957-015-0731-2. (PMID: 26596699)
• 29 Behrendorff N, Febery A, Khoo JF. et al. Comparison of intraoperative ultrasound-guided excision and hookwire-guided excision of impalpable breast lesions: An economic evaluation. Breast J 2020; 26: 1879-1881 DOI: 10.1111/tbj.13883. (PMID: 32449189)
• 30 Merrill AY, Ochoa D, Klimberg VS. et al. Cutting Healthcare Costs with Hematoma-Directed Ultrasound-Guided Breast Lumpectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 2018; 25: 3076-3081 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-018-6596-1. (PMID: 30112589)
• 31 Arentz C, Baxter K, Boneti C. et al. Ten-year experience with hematoma-directed ultrasound-guided (HUG) breast lumpectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 2010; 17 (Suppl. 03) 378-383 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-010-1230-x. (PMID: 20853061)
• 32 Esgueva A, Rodriguez-Revuelto R, Espinosa-Bravo M. et al. Learning curves in intraoperative ultrasound guided surgery in breast cancer based on complete breast cancer excision and no need for second surgeries. Eur J Surg Oncol 2019; 45: 578-583 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2019.01.017. (PMID: 30737056)
• 33 Konen J, Murphy S, Berkman A. et al. Intraoperative Ultrasound Guidance With an Ultrasound-Visible Clip: A Practical and Cost-effective Option for Breast Cancer Localization. J Ultrasound Med 2020; 39: 911-917 DOI: 10.1002/jum.15172. (PMID: 31737930)
• 34 Haloua MH, Krekel NM, Coupe VM. et al. Ultrasound-guided surgery for palpable breast cancer is cost-saving: results of a cost-benefit analysis. Breast 2013; 22: 238-243 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2013.02.002. (PMID: 23478199)
• 35 Law MT, Kollias J, Bennett I. Evaluation of office ultrasound usage among Australian and New Zealand breast surgeons. World J Surg 2013; 37: 2148-2154 DOI: 10.1007/s00268-013-2076-8. (PMID: 23649530)
• 36 Rahusen FD, Taets van Amerongen AH, van Diest PJ. et al. Ultrasound-guided lumpectomy of nonpalpable breast cancers: A feasibility study looking at the accuracy of obtained margins. J Surg Oncol 1999; 72: 72-76 DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1096-9098(199910)72:23.0.co;2-m. (PMID: 10518102)
• 37 Ahmed M, Abdullah N, Cawthorn S. et al. Why should breast surgeons use ultrasound?. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2014; 145: 1-4 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-014-2926-6. (PMID: 24706083)
• 38 Raghavan K, Shah AK, Cosgrove JM. Intraoperative breast problem-focused sonography a valuable tool in the training of surgical residents. J Surg Educ 2008; 65: 350-353 DOI: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2008.06.005. (PMID: 18809164)
• 39 Staren ED, Knudson MM, Rozycki GS. et al. An evaluation of the American College of Surgeons' ultrasound education program. Am J Surg 2006; 191: 489-496 DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.10.023. (PMID: 16531142)
• 40 Espinosa-Bravo M, Rubio IT. Intraoperative ultrasound guided breast surgery: paving the way for personalized surgery. Gland Surg 2016; 5: 366-368 DOI: 10.21037/gs.2016.03.06. (PMID: 27294242)
• 41 Krekel NM, Lopes Cardozo AM, Muller S. et al. Optimising surgical accuracy in palpable breast cancer with intra-operative breast ultrasound--feasibility and surgeons' learning curve. Eur J Surg Oncol 2011; 37: 1044-1050 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2011.08.127. (PMID: 21924854)
• 42 Ditsch N, Kolberg-Liedtke C, Friedrich M. et al. AGO Recommendations for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients with Early Breast Cancer: Update 2021. Breast Care 2021; 16: 10 DOI: 10.1159/000516419. (PMID: 34248462)
• 43 Krekel N, Zonderhuis B, Muller S. et al. Excessive resections in breast-conserving surgery: a retrospective multicentre study. Breast J 2011; 17: 602-609 DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2011.01198.x. (PMID: 22050281)
• 44 Recommendations of the AGO Breast Committee: Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients with early and advanced Breast Cancer. 2021 www.ago-online.de
• 45 NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology, Breast Cancer, Version 2.2022 – December 20, 2021, NCCN.org. 2022
• 46 Gera R, Tayeh S, Al-Reefy S. et al. Evolving Role of Magseed in Wireless Localization of Breast Lesions: Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis of 1559 Procedures. Anticancer Res 2020; 40: 1809-1815 DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.14135. (PMID: 32234869)