Abstract
Purpose
To evaluate the usefulness of the UltraClip® dual trigger breast tissue marker (UltraClip) for sonographic localization, we investigate the sonographic visibility and sonographic appearance of the UltraClip placed in phantoms and patients.
Materials and methods
Ten UltraClips were placed in the target lesions in the phantoms. After the ultrasound examination of the UltraClip, the ultrasound images were compared to the real appearance of the UltraClip obtained by cutting the phantoms. In the patient, the UltraClip markers were placed after biopsy of a suspicious breast lesion or before or during neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The patients consented to return 1–3 weeks after the procedure for ultrasound imaging of the UltraClip.
Results
The UltraClip placed in the phantom appeared as a hyperechoic structure with a mean maximum diameter of 5.5 mm, which was found to correspond to the metallic clip in 90% (9/10) of the cases, and as a hyperechoic tubular structure with a maximum diameter of 9.0 mm corresponded to the expanded polyvinyl alcohol polymer in the remaining 10% (1/10) of cases. On the other hand, the UltraClip was detected as a hyperechoic structure measuring 3.5 mm in size only in 9 of the 15 (60%) patients. The sonographic visibility of the UltraClip was not affected depending on whether the target lesion or post-biopsy scar was sonographically detectable or not [60% (6/10) vs. 60% (3/5)].
Conclusions
While sonographic localization by targeting the UltraClip may be useful in 60% of the patients, another localization technique will be needed in the remaining patients.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Reference
Ahmed M, Douek M. Intra-operative ultrasound versus wire-guided localization in the surgical management of non-palpable breast cancers: systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;140:435–46.
Rahusen FD, Bremers AJ, Fabry HF, van Amerongen AH, Boom RP, Meijer S. Ultrasound-guided lumpectomy of nonpalpable breast cancer versus wire-guided resection: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg Oncol. 2002;9(10):994–8.
Nurco J, Mancino AT, Whitacre E, Edwards MJ. Surgical benefits conveyed by biopsy site marking system using ultrasound localization. Am J Surg. 2005;190:618–22.
Rosen EL, Baker JA, Soo MS. Accuracy of a collagen-plug biopsy site marking device deployed after stereotactic core needle breast biopsy. AJR. 2003;181:1295–9.
Klein RL, Mook JA, Euhus DM, Rao R, Wynn RT, Eastman AB, et al. Evaluation of a hydrogel based breast biopsy marker (HydroMARK®) as an alternative to wire and radioactive seed localization for non-palpable breast lesions. J Surg Oncol. 2012;105(6):591–4.
Gittleman MA. Single-step ultrasound localization of breast lesions and lumpectomy procedure. Am J Surg. 2003;186(4):386–90.
Eby PR, Calhoun KE, Kurland BF, Demartini WB, Gutierrez RL, Peacock S, et al. Preoperative and intraoperative sonographic visibility of collagen-based breast biopsy marker clips. Acad Radiol. 2010;17(3):340–7.
Pinkney D, Shah A. Prospective comparative study to evaluate the sonographic visibility of five commercially available breast biopsy markers. J Diagn Medical Sonogr. 2013;29(4):151–8.
Seow JH, Phillips M, Taylor D. Sonographic visibility of breast tissue markers: a tissue phantom comparison study. AJUM. 2012;15(4):149–57.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
About this article
Cite this article
Sakamoto, N., Ogawa, Y., Tsunoda, Y. et al. Evaluation of the sonographic visibility and sonographic appearance of the breast biopsy marker (UltraClip®) placed in phantoms and patients. Breast Cancer 24, 585–592 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-016-0741-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-016-0741-0