ABSTRACT
Background: There is little literature comparing intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS) with radio-guided occult lesions localization (ROLL) in nonpalpable invasive tumors in breast conserving surgery (BCS). There is a need to compare these two methods in terms of safety and efficacy. Methods: This is an observational cohort study. All patients treated with BCS for nonpalpable invasive breast cancer using IOUS from March 2016 to March 2020 were included and compared with a historical reference control group operated on using ROLL from March 2013 to March 2017. For each detection method, the ability to locate tumors intraoperatively, tumor and surgical specimen sizes, total resection volume (TRV), optimal resection volume, excess of healthy tissue resected (ETR), margin status, re-excision rate, surgical time, complications and costs were studied. Results: One hundred and fifty-eight were included, 83 with IOUS and 75 with ROLL. The mean tumor size is equivalent in both groups (11.88 mm IOUS vs. 12.29 mm ROLL, P=0.668). TRV is significantly lower with IOUS (24.92 vs. 60.32 cm3, P<0.001), and the ETR is also significantly lower in the IOUS group (21.74 vs. 58.37 cm3, P<0.001). The rate of positive margins did not differ (10.98% vs. 12.16%, P=1), nor did re-excision rate (10.98% vs. 8.11%, P=0.597). Complication rate did not differ (12.2% IOUS vs. 10.81% ROLL, P=0.808). Surgical time was shorter in IOUS (45.5 vs. 57 min, P>0.05). Conclusions: IOUS in BCS for nonpalpable invasive breast cancer is more accurate than ROLL because it decreases excision volumes with the same rate of free margins and re-excision. Also, IOUS is a more efficient and comfortable technique, and just as safe as ROLL.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is not indicated. However, in certain cases (size >3 cm, high grade, mass effect on mammography, or palpable mass), it may be possible to find incidental invasive carcinoma (IC) that requires an SLNB. We studied the correlation of the aforesaid factors with the probability of finding IC in the surgical specimen. METHODS: Data was collected from 3 different institutions between 2010 and 2016, recording characteristics such as, but not limited to: high grade, size >3 cm, mass effect on mammography, and palpable mass. RESULTS: On the whole, 468 "high-risk" DCIS cases were identified, 139 (29%) of which had IC. When the DCIS was high grade or the size was >3 cm, there was no significant difference in the probability of finding IC in the surgical specimen (OR = 1.13; 95% CI 0.84-1.51; OR = 1.2; 95% CI 0.85-1.40). Nevertheless, when a high grade and size (>3 cm) were combined, IC was more likely to exist (72.7 vs. 27.3%; p = 0.001). In addition, mass effect and palpation were independently associated with a significantly greater degree of IC (OR = 12.76; 95% CI 6.93-23.52). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that high-grade DCIS or DCIS with a size >3 cm, independently, does not require SLNB. Nonetheless, in the event that both factors are found in the same case, SLNB may be indicated. Additionally, SLNB is advisable for DCIS cases that are palpable or show a mass effect on mammography.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the best method in our center to measure preoperative tumor size in breast tumors, using as reference the tumor size in the postoperative surgical specimen. We compared physical examination vs. mammography vs. resonance vs. ultrasound. There are different studies in the literature with disparate results. METHODS: This is a retrospective study. All the included patients have been studied by clinical examination performed by gynecologist or surgeon specialists in senology, and radiological tests (mammography, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging). The correlation of mammary examination, ultrasound, mammography and resonance with pathological anatomy was studied using the Pearson index. Subsequently, the results of such imaging tests were compared with the tumor size of the infiltrating component measured by anatomopathological study using a student's t test for related variables. The level of significance was set at 95%. Statistical package R. was used. RESULTS: A total of 73 cases were collected from October 2015 to July 2016 with diagnosis of infiltrating breast carcinoma. Twelve cases of carcinoma in situ and seven cases of neoadjuvant carcinoma are excluded. Finally, a total of 56 cases were included in the analysis. The mean age of the patients is 57 years. The histology is of infiltrating ductal carcinoma in 46 patients (80.7%), lobular in 8 (14%) and other carcinomas in 3 cases (5.2%). We verified the relationship between preoperative tumor size by physical examination, mammography, ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and the final size of the surgical specimen by applying a Pearson correlation test. A strong correlation was found between the physical examination results 0.62 (0.43-0.76 at 95% CI), ultrasound 0.68 (0.51-0.8 at 95% CI), mammography 0.57 (0.36-0.72 at 95% CI) and RM 0.51 (0.29-0.68 at 95% CI) with respect to pathological anatomy. The mean tumor size of the surgical specimen was 16.1 mm. Mean of tumor size by physical examination was 12.1 mm (P<0.05), by 14 mm US (P<0.05), by mammography of 14.3 (P<0.05) and by MRI of 22.53 mm (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasonography is the best predictor of tumor size in breast cancer, compared with clinical examination, mammography, and resonance. Our work could help the decision-making process such as the type of conservative surgery, the possible need for oncoplastic surgery or the decision to start treatment with neoadjuvant therapy, in patients with unifocal tumors.
ABSTRACT
No disponible