8 research outputs found

    Current status of ultrasound-guided surgery in the treatment of breast cancer

    No full text
    The primary goal of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is to obtain tumour-free resection margins. Margins positive or focally positive for tumour cells are associated with a high risk of local recurrence, and in the case of tumour-positive margins, re-excision or even mastectomy are sometimes needed to achieve definite clear margins. Unfortunately, tumour-involved margins and re-excisions after lumpectomy are still reported in up to 40% of patients and additionally, unnecessary large excision volumes are described. A secondary goal of BCS is the cosmetic outcome and one of the main determinants of worse cosmetic outcome is a large excision volume. Up to 30% of unsatisfied cosmetic outcome is reported. Therefore, the search for better surgical techniques to improve margin status, excision volume and consequently, cosmetic outcome has continued. Nowadays, the most commonly used localization methods for BCS of non-palpable breast cancers are wire-guided localization (WGL) and radio-guided localization (RGL). WGL and RGL are invasive procedures that need to be performed pre-operatively with technical and scheduling difficulties. For palpable breast cancer, tumour excision is usually guided by tactile skills of the surgeon performing "blind" surgery. One of the surgical techniques pursuing the aims of radicality and small excision volumes includes intra-operative ultrasound (IOUS). The best evidence available demonstrates benefits of IOUS with a significantly high proportion of negative margins compared with other localization techniques in palpable and non-palpable breast cancer. Additionally, IOUS is non-invasive, easy to learn and can centralize the tumour in the excised specimen with low amount of healthy breast tissue being excised. This could lead to better cosmetic results of BCS. Despite the advantages of IOUS, only a small amount of surgeons are performing this technique. This review aims to highlight the position of ultrasound-guided surgery for malignant breast tumours in the search for better oncological and cosmetic outcomes

    Intraoperative Ultrasound Guidance in Breast-Conserving Surgery Improves Cosmetic Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction: Results of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (COBALT)

    No full text
    BACKGROUND: Ultrasound-guided breast-conserving surgery (USS) results in a significant reduction in both margin involvement and excision volumes (COBALT trial). Objective. The aim of the present study was to determine whether USS also leads to improvements in cosmetic outcome and patient satisfaction when compared with standard palpation-guided surgery (PGS). METHODS: A total of 134 patients with T1–T2 invasive breast cancer were included in the COBALT trial (NTR2579) and randomized to either USS (65 patients) or PGS (69 patients). Cosmetic outcomes were assessed by a three-member panel using computerized software Breast Cancer Conservative Treatment cosmetic results (BCCT.- core) and by patient self-evaluation, including patient satisfaction. Time points for follow-up were 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Overall cosmetic outcome and patient satisfaction were scored on a 4-point Likert scale (excellent, good, fair, or poor), and outcomes were analyzed using a multilevel, mixed effect, proportional odds model for ordinal responses. RESULTS: Ultrasound-guided breast-conserving surgery achieved better cosmetic outcomes, with 20 % excellence overall and only 6 % rated as poor, whereas 14 % of PGS outcomes were rated excellent and 13 % as poor. USS also had consistently lower odds for worse cosmetic outcomes (odds ratio 0.55, p = 0.067) than PGS. The chance of having a worse outcome was significantly increased by a larger lumpectomy volume (ptrend = 0.002); a volume [40 cc showed odds 2.78-fold higher for a worse outcome than a volume B40 cc. USS resulted in higher patient satisfaction compared with PGS. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound-guided breast-conserving surgery achieved better overall cosmetic outcomes and patient satisfaction than PGS. Lumpectomy volumes[40 cc resulted in significantly worse cosmetic outcomes
    corecore