Bracketing wires for preoperative breast needle localization.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of bracketing wire placement during preoperative breast needle localization. SUBJECTS AND METHODS We prospectively examined mammograms of 1057 consecutive lesions that had preoperative needle localization and surgical excision and classified the lesions according to Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) final assessment categories. Bracketing wires, defined as multiple wires placed to delineate the boundaries of a single lesion, were used in 103 (9.7%) of 1057 lesions. Medical records, imaging studies, and histologic findings in these 103 lesions were reviewed. RESULTS Of 103 bracketed lesions, median lesion size was 3.5 cm (range, 1.5-9.5 cm). Ninety-three lesions (90.3%) contained calcifications; 65 lesions (63.1%) were BI-RADS category 5 (highly suggestive of malignancy); and 33 lesions (32.0%) were percutaneously proven cancers. The median number of wires placed was two (range, 2-5). Surgical histologic findings were carcinoma in 75 lesions (72.8%), atypical hyperplasia in eight lesions (7.8%), and benign in 20 lesions (19.4%). Of 42 calcific lesions that were bracketed and had postoperative mammograms available for review, complete removal of suspicious calcifications was accomplished in 34 (81.0%). Of 75 cancers that were bracketed, clear histologic margins of resection were obtained in 33 (44.0%). CONCLUSION Bracketing wires were used during preoperative needle localization primarily for larger calcific lesions that were proven cancers or were highly suggestive of malignancy (BI-RADS category 5). Bracketing wires may assist the surgeon in achieving complete excision of calcifications, but bracketing wires do not ensure clear histologic margins of resection.

[1]  D. Winchester,et al.  Standards for breast‐conservation treatment , 1992, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[2]  P. Bult,et al.  Three dimensional imaging of mammary ductal carcinoma in situ: clinical implications. , 1994, Seminars in diagnostic pathology.

[3]  J. Hendriks,et al.  Extent, distribution, and mammographic/ histological correlations of breast ductal carcinoma in situ , 1990, The Lancet.

[4]  S G Orel.  MR imaging of the breast. , 2000, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[5]  M. Helvie,et al.  Extent of Lumpectomy for Breast Cancer After Diagnosis by Stereotactic Core Versus Wire Localization Biopsy , 1999, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[6]  L. Liberman,et al.  Microcalcifications on postoperative mammograms as an indicator of adequacy of tumor excision. , 1993, Radiology.

[7]  M. Silverstein,et al.  Hooked‐wire‐directed breast biopsy and overpenetrated mammography , 1987, Cancer.

[8]  S. Harms,et al.  Technical Report of the International Working Group on Breast MRI , 1999, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[9]  E. White,et al.  Breast conservation therapy in the United States following the 1990 National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference on the treatment of patients with early stage invasive breast carcinoma , 1999, Cancer.

[10]  S. Martino,et al.  The influence of margin width on local control of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. , 1999, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  J. Sparano,et al.  Stereotactic core needle biopsy of multiple sites in the breast: efficacy and effect on patient care. , 1996, Radiology.

[12]  T. Smith,et al.  The efficacy of specimen radiography in evaluating the surgical margins of impalpable breast carcinoma. , 1994, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[13]  J. Hendriks,et al.  Microcalcifications associated with ductal carcinoma in situ: mammographic-pathologic correlation. , 1994, Seminars in diagnostic pathology.

[14]  M. Silverstein,et al.  Nonpalpable breast lesions: diagnosis with slightly overpenetrated screen-film mammography and hook wire-directed biopsy in 1,014 cases. , 1989, Radiology.

[15]  S. Edge,et al.  Treatment of early-stage breast cancer. , 1999, Current problems in cancer.

[16]  S. Goldenberg,et al.  Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound. A retrospective review , 1995, Cancer.

[17]  S J Schnitt,et al.  The relationship between microscopic margins of resection and the risk of local recurrence in patients with breast cancer treated with breast‐conserving surgery and radiation therapy , 1994, Cancer.

[18]  M. Silverstein,et al.  Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. , 2000, Annual review of medicine.

[19]  W. Berg,et al.  Multicentric and multifocal cancer: whole-breast US in preoperative evaluation. , 2000, Radiology.

[20]  K. Kerlikowske,et al.  Incidence of and treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. , 1996, JAMA.

[21]  L. Liberman,et al.  Core needle biopsy of synchronous ipsilateral breast lesions: impact on treatment. , 1996, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[22]  M. Silverstein,et al.  The Breast Biopsy Paradigm Shifts Once Again , 1999, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[23]  C. D. HAAGENSEN,et al.  Diseases of the Breast , 1972 .

[24]  L. Liberman,et al.  Impact of core biopsy on the surgical management of impalpable breast cancer: another look at margins. , 1997, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[25]  J. Norton,et al.  Mammographically detected breast cancer. Benefits of stereotactic core versus wire localization biopsy. , 1996, Annals of surgery.