The value of ultrasound-guided surgery for breast cancer

Arko, Darja; Sikošek, Nina Čas; Kozar, Nejc; Sobočan, Monika; Takač, Iztok

doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.07.034

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recently, Chang et al evaluated hydrogel clips to facilitate IUSS‐guided lumpectomies and found that this technique could be a cost‐effective alternative to PWL in patients who are candidates for clip placement. On the other hand, calcifications represent a major concern in the use of IUSS, since they cause imaging problems for IUSS, heading for overtreatment or positive margins …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

“…represent a major concern in the use of IUSS, since they cause imaging problems for IUSS, heading for overtreatment or positive margins. 7 IUSS represents a non-invasive and time-saving method, 8 but requires adequate training. Several experiences have reported good results in terms of sensitivity, negative neoplastic margins, and percentage of patients undergoing re-excision, demonstrating that IUSS is safe and effective, reducing patient anxiety and discomfort due to supplementary examinations or insertion of a guide wire and saving time and money for hospitals.…”

Section: Re Sultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Intraoperative sonography for nonpalpable breast lesions: Additional indications for a consolidate technique

Famà¹,

Maria

Cicciù

et al. 2020

Breast J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This prospective study evaluated the intraoperative ultrasound scan (IUSS) for nonpalpable breast lesions’ detection. A total of 108 consecutive female patients underwent surgery using IUSS: Frozen sections demonstrated clear margins in 95.5% of neoplastic patients. Only four (4.5%) patients underwent local re‐excision in the same operation. IUSS demonstrated to be quick, accurate, useful, effective, and safe for the intraoperative management of neoplastic nonpalpable breast lesions when performed by a surgeon who has undergone US training, particularly for people in whom alternative approaches can show some limitations due to contraindications or because of scheduling constraints, costs, and patient discomfort.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Section: Re Sultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intraoperative sonography for nonpalpable breast lesions: Additional indications for a consolidate technique

Famà¹,

Maria

Cicciù

et al. 2020

Breast J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many studies on intraoperative ultrasound without the use of wires show good results with good rates of clear margins. They also testified to the ease of learning breast ultrasound [27][28][29][30][31][32][33].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes of intraoperative versus preoperative ultrasound-guided wire localization of nonpalpable breast lesions

Wignarajah

Papalouka

Forouhi

2021

Breast Cancer Manage.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Nonpalpable breast lesions require localization, the gold standard for which is preoperative ultrasound-guided wire localization (PUGWL). Our unit also employs intraoperative ultrasound-guided wire localization (IUGWL). Here we evaluate PUGWL and IUGWL outcomes between 2014 and 2018. Primary outcomes were reoperation rates, complication rates and average specimen weights. Trainee feedback and cost analysis assessed IUGWL viability. Methods: Prospectively recorded data were collected. 511 patients were included (241 PUGWL and 270 IUGWL). Results: Reoperation rates: PUGWL 17.7% versus IUGWL 13.9% (p = 0.28) . Complication rates: PUGWL 5.8% versus IUGWL 6.6% (p = 0.72) . Average specimen weight: PUGWL 34.2 g versus IUGWL 24.3 g (p < 0.0001) . Trainees needed 15 supervised cases to be IUGWL competent. Performing IUGWL saves £289 per localization. Conclusion: IUGWL outcomes are comparable to those of PUGWL. IUGWL is cost-effective, patient-friendly and easy to learn and replicate. IUGWL merits wider dissemination and further planned research.

show abstract

“…Ultrasound parameters are usually adjusted to reach the desired effect, e.g. to typical intensity/frequency values of i ~ a few mW/cm 2 and f ~ 1.5-50 MHz for tumor imaging, [176], i < 1 W/cm 2 and f ~ 0.5-1 MHz for permeabilization of BBB, [177], and i ~ 10 3 to 10 4 W/cm 2 and f ~ 20 kHz to 200 MHz for HIFU tumor destruction, [178]. Other advantages of ultrasounds come from the moderate cost and compactness of most equipment used to generate them compared with CT, MRI, and radiation therapy apparatus, [179].…”

Section: Clinical Uses Of Nano/micro-systems Exposed To Ultrasound Fo...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultrasound and nanomaterial: an efficient pair to fight cancer

Alphandéry

2022

J Nanobiotechnol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ultrasounds are often used in cancer treatment protocols, e.g. to collect tumor tissues in the right location using ultrasound-guided biopsy, to image the region of the tumor using more affordable and easier to use apparatus than MRI and CT, or to ablate tumor tissues using HIFU. The efficacy of these methods can be further improved by combining them with various nano-systems, thus enabling: (i) a better resolution of ultrasound imaging, allowing for example the visualization of angiogenic blood vessels, (ii) the specific tumor targeting of anti-tumor chemotherapeutic drugs or gases attached to or encapsulated in nano-systems and released in a controlled manner in the tumor under ultrasound application, (iii) tumor treatment at tumor site using more moderate heating temperatures than with HIFU. Furthermore, some nano-systems display adjustable sizes, i.e. nanobubbles can grow into micro-bubbles. Such dual size is advantageous since it enables gathering within the same unit the targeting properties of nano bubbles via EPR effect and the enhanced ultrasound contrasting properties of micro bubbles. Interestingly, the way in which nano-systems act against a tumor could in principle also be adjusted by accurately selecting the nano-system among a large choice and by tuning the values of the ultrasound parameters, which can lead, due to their mechanical nature, to specific effects such as cavitation that are usually not observed with purely electromagnetic waves and can potentially help destroying the tumor. This review highlights the clinical potential of these combined treatments that can improve the benefit/risk ratio of current cancer treatments. Graphical Abstract

show abstract

The value of ultrasound-guided surgery for breast cancer

Cited by 7 publications

References 39 publications

Intraoperative sonography for nonpalpable breast lesions: Additional indications for a consolidate technique

Intraoperative sonography for nonpalpable breast lesions: Additional indications for a consolidate technique

Outcomes of intraoperative versus preoperative ultrasound-guided wire localization of nonpalpable breast lesions

Ultrasound and nanomaterial: an efficient pair to fight cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About