J Breast Cancer.  2015 Mar;18(1):44-49. 10.4048/jbc.2015.18.1.44.

Ultrasonography-Guided Surgical Clip Placement for Tumor Localization in Patients Undergoing Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer

• Youn I
• Choi SH
• Kook SH
• Choi YJ
• Park CH
• Park YL
• Kim DH

• KMID: 2286336
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4048/jbc.2015.18.1.44

Abstract

PURPOSE
We investigated the feasibility of using surgical clips as markers for tumor localization and their effect on the imaging evaluation of treatment responses after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC).
METHODS
A total of 16 breast cancers confirmed by needle biopsy in 15 patients were included in this study from October 2012 to June 2014. Under ultrasonography (US)-guidance, the surgical clips were placed prior to NAC. Additional mammography, breast US, and breast magnetic resonance examinations were performed within 10 days before surgery. The time period from marker insertion to operation date was documented. Images acquired via the three modalities were evalu-ated for the following parameters: location of clip, clip migration (>1 cm), the presence of complications from clip placement, and the effect of clips on the assessment of treatment.
RESULTS
The mean time period was 128.6+/-34.4 days (median, 132.0 days) from the date of clip insertion to the date of surgery. The mean number of inserted clips was 2.3+/-0.7 (median, 2.0). Clip migration was not visualized by imaging in any patient, and there were no complications reported. Surgical clips did not negatively affect the assessment of treatment responses to NAC.
CONCLUSION
Surgical clips may replace commercial tissue markers for tumor localization in breast cancer patients undergoing NAC without migration. Surgical clips are well tolerated and safe for the patient, easily visualized on imaging, do not interfere with treatment response, and are cost-effective.

Keyword

Breast neoplasms; Image-guided biopsy; Neoadjuvant therapy; Surgical instruments; Ultrasonography

MeSH Terms

Biopsy, Needle
Breast
Breast Neoplasms*
Drug Therapy*
Humans
Image-Guided Biopsy
Mammography
Neoadjuvant Therapy
Surgical Instruments*
Ultrasonography

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Schematic diagram of the preoperative ultrasonography (US)-guided surgical clip insertion. (A) The coaxial guiding needle with an inner stylet and surgical clips. (B) Under US-guidance (blue), the coaxial guiding needle (white) is inserted into the the center of the breast cancer (pink), and one or two clips (black) are passed through. The inner stylet (light blue) is reinserted for pushing the clip.

• 

  Figure 2 Mammography of a 40-year-old woman who underwent ultrasonography-guided surgical clip insertion due to left breast cancer. (A) Postprocedural follow-up mammography was performed after clipping, and showed metal clips in the center of the proven malignant mass. (B) At preoperative final follow-up mammography, the clips were located in the proven malignant mass which had decreased in size. There was no evidence of clip migration or other complications. (C) Specimen mammography was performed immediately after surgery, and there were metal clips visualized in the proven malignant lesion without evidence of clip migration. The pathologic result was invasive carcinoma of no special type, and a clear tumor margin was observed.

• 

  Figure 3 Preoperative ultrasonography (US)-guided surgical clip insertion. On US images, the coaxial needle (arrows) is visible as an echogenic white line and the clips show a linear hyperechoic structure (arrowhead) in the center of the proven malignancy.

• 

  Figure 4 Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of a 40-year-old woman who underwent ultrasonography-guided surgical clip insertion due to left breast cancer. (A) There was a 19 mm-sized, fast, washout-enhancing malignancy at initial T1-weighted enhanced MRI with subtraction. (B) At preoperative follow-up MRI after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, a small signal void due to the clips (arrowhead) was observed in the center of the proven malignancy, which was much decreased in size and enhancement. However there was no difficulty in evaluating treatment response.

Reference

1. Kaufmann M, von Minckwitz G, Bear HD, Buzdar A, McGale P, Bonnefoi H, et al. Recommendations from an international expert panel on the use of neoadjuvant (primary) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: new perspectives 2006. Ann Oncol. 2007; 18:1927–1934.

2. Oh JL, Nguyen G, Whitman GJ, Hunt KK, Yu TK, Woodward WA, et al. Placement of radiopaque clips for tumor localization in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy and breast conservation therapy. Cancer. 2007; 110:2420–2427.

3. Abdel-Razeq H, Marei L. Current neoadjuvant treatment options for HER2-positive breast cancer. Biologics. 2011; 5:87–94.

4. Kim Z, Min SY, Yoon CS, Lee HJ, Lee JS, Youn HJ, et al. The basic facts of Korean breast cancer in 2011: results of a nationwide survey and breast cancer registry database. J Breast Cancer. 2014; 17:99–106.

5. Lobbes MB, Prevos R, Smidt M, Tjan-Heijnen VC, van Goethem M, Schipper R, et al. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in assessing residual disease and pathologic complete response in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a systematic review. Insights Imaging. 2013; 4:163–175.

6. Dash N, Chafin SH, Johnson RR, Contractor FM. Usefulness of tissue marker clips in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999; 173:911–917.

7. Kaufmann M, von Minckwitz G, Mamounas EP, Cameron D, Carey LA, Cristofanilli M, et al. Recommendations from an international consensus conference on the current status and future of neoadjuvant systemic therapy in primary breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012; 19:1508–1516.

8. Margolin FR, Jacobs RP, Denny SR, Schrumpf JD. Clip placement after sonographically guided percutaneous breast biopsy. Breast J. 2003; 9:226–230.

9. Kopans DB. Clip placement during sonographically guided breast biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001; 176:1076–1077.

10. Guenin MA. Clip placement during sonographically guided large-core breast biopsy for mammographic-sonographic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000; 175:1053–1055.

11. Phillips SW, Gabriel H, Comstock CE, Venta LA. Sonographically guided metallic clip placement after core needle biopsy of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000; 175:1353–1355.

12. Genson CC, Blane CE, Helvie MA, Waits SA, Chenevert TL. Effects on breast MRI of artifacts caused by metallic tissue marker clips. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007; 188:372–376.

13. Tamai K, Mitsumori M, Fujishiro S, Kokubo M, Ooya N, Nagata Y, et al. A case of allergic reaction to surgical metal clips inserted for postoperative boost irradiation in a patient undergoing breast-conserving therapy. Breast Cancer. 2001; 8:90–92.

14. Coles CE, Wilson CB, Cumming J, Benson JR, Forouhi P, Wilkinson JS, et al. Titanium clip placement to allow accurate tumour bed localization following breast conserving surgery: audit on behalf of the IMPORT Trial Management Group. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009; 35:578–582.

15. Uematsu T. Commercially available titanium clip placement following a sonographically guided core needle biopsy of the breast. Breast J. 2007; 13:624–626.

16. Lee SY, Kook SH, Kwag HJ. The results and usefulness of marker clip placement after ultrasound-guided mammotome excision of breast lesion. J Korean Radiol Soc. 2005; 52:207–213.

17. Margolin FR, Kaufman L, Denny SR, Jacobs RP, Schrumpf JD. Metallic marker placement after stereotactic core biopsy of breast calcifications: comparison of two clips and deployment techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003; 181:1685–1690.

18. Baron LF, Baron PL, Ackerman SJ, Durden DD, Pope TL Jr. Sonographically guided clip placement facilitates localization of breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000; 174:539–540.