Daniela Ochoa

Axillary reverse mapping: Five-year experience

BACKGROUND We hypothesize that mapping the lymphatic drainage of the arm with blue dye (axillary reverse mapping, ARM) during axillary lymphadenectomy decreases the likelihood of disruption of lymphatics and subsequent lymphedema. METHODS This institutional review board-approved study from May 2006 to October 2011 involved 360 patients undergoing SLNB and/or ALND. Technetium sulfur colloid (4 mL) was injected subareolarly and 5 mL of blue dye was injected subcutaneously in the volar surface ipsilateral upper extremity (ARM). Data were collected on variations in lymphatic drainage, successful identification and protection of arm lymphatics, crossover, and occurrence of lymphedema. RESULTS A group of 360 patients underwent SLNB and/or ALND. A total of 348 patients underwent a SLNB. Of those, 237/348(68.1%) had a SLNB only and 111/348(31.9%) went on to an ALND due to a positive axilla. An additional 12/360(3.3%) axilla had ALND due to a clinically positive axilla/preoperative core needle biopsy. In 96%(334/348) of patients with SLNB, breast SLNs were hot but not blue; crossover (SLN hot and blue) was seen in 14/348(4%). Blue lymphatics were identified in 80/237(33.7%) of SLN incisions and in 93/123(75.4%) ALND. Average follow-up was 12 months (range 3 to 48 months) and resulted in a SLNB lymphedema rate of 1.7%(4/237) and ALND of 2.4%(3/123). CONCLUSIONS ARM identified significant lymphatic variations draining the upper extremities and facilitated preservation. Metastases in ARM-identified lymph nodes were acceptably low indicating that ARM is safe. ARM added to present-day ALND and SLNB may be useful to lower lymphedema rates.

Does Axillary Reverse Mapping Prevent Lymphedema After Lymphadenectomy

Background: We hypothesized that disconcerting lymphedema rates in both sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) and axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) may be because of unrecognized vunerable variations in arm lymphatic drainage within the axilla. Axillary reverse mapping (ARM) facilitates identification and avoidance of arm lymphatics within the axilla and its use may reduce lymphedema. Methods: This institutional review board-approved study from June 2007 to December 2013 involved patients undergoing SLNB with or without ALND, or ALND alone. Technetium is injected subareolarly for localization of the breast SLN and isosulfan blue dye (5 mL) is injected in the ipsilateral upper arm for localization of nonbreast lymphatics. Data were collected on identification and preservation of arm lymphatics, crossover rates, blue node metastases, axillary recurrence, and lymphedema as measured by volume displacement. Results: A total of 654 patients prospectively underwent 685 ARM procedures with a SLNB and/or ALND. Objective lymphedema rates for SLNB and ALND were 0.8% and 6.5% respectively, with 26-month median follow up. Blue lymphatics were identified in 29.2% (138/472) of SLNB and 71.8% (153/213) of ALND. Crossover was seen in 3.8% (18/472) of SLNB and 5.6% (12/213) of ALND. Blue node metastases rate was 4.5% (2/44). Axillary recurrence rate was 0.2% and 1.4% for SLNB and ALND, respectively. Conclusions: ARM allows frequent identification of arm lymphatics in the axilla, which would have been transected during routine surgery. Rates of metastases in noncrossover nodes and axillary recurrences are low. Lymphedema rates are dramatically reduced using ARM when compared with accepted standards.

Long-Term Results of Phase II Ablation after Breast Lumpectomy Added to Extend Intraoperative Margins (ABLATE l) Trial

BACKGROUND Excision followed by radiofrequency ablation (eRFA) is an intraoperative method that uses intracavitary hyperthermia to create an additional tumor-free zone around the lumpectomy cavity in breast cancer patients. We hypothesized that eRFA after lumpectomy for invasive breast cancer could reduce the need for re-excision for close margins as well as potentially maintain local control without the need for radiation. STUDY DESIGN This prospective phase II institutional review board-approved study was conducted from March 2004 to April 2010. A standard lumpectomy was performed, then the RFA probe was deployed 1 cm circumferentially into the walls of the lumpectomy cavity and maintained at 100 °C for 15 minutes. Validated Doppler sonography was used to intraoperatively determine adequacy of ablation. RESULTS One hundred patients were accrued to the trial, with an average age of 65.02 years ± 10.0 years. The stages were Tis (n = 30); T1mic (n = 1); T1a (n = 9); T1b (n = 27); T1c (n = 22); T2 (n = 10) ; and T3 (n = 1). Grades were I (n = 48); II (n = 29); and III (n = 23). Seventy-eight subjects had margins >2 mm (negative), 22 patients had margins ≤ 2 mm, of which 12 were close and 3 focally positive, which, at our institution, would have required re-excision (only 1 patient in this group had re-excision). There were 6% postoperative complications, and 24 patients received radiation therapy (XRT). During the study mean follow-up period of 62 months ± 24 months (68-month median follow-up) in patients not treated with XRT, there were 2 in-site tumor recurrences treated with aromitase inhibitor, 3 biopsy entrance site recurrences treated with excision and XRT to conserve the breast, and 2 recurrences elsewhere and 1 contralateral recurrence; all 3 treated with mastectomy. CONCLUSIONS Long-term follow-up suggests that eRFA may reduce the need for re-excision for close or focally positive margins in breast cancer patients, and eRFA may be a valuable tool for treating favorable patients who desire lumpectomy and either cannot or do not want radiation. A multicenter trial has been initiated based on these results.

Surgical Strategies for Prevention and Treatment of Lymphedema in Breast Cancer Patients

The evidence available for risk reduction of lymphedema after breast cancer treatment is sparse and inconsistent. It is limited by confounding factors such as axillary disease burden, number of lymph nodes harvested, and radiation treatment. However, there are several strategies for prevention and risk reduction prior to the onset of lymphedema. Techniques such as sentinel lymph node biopsy, axillary reverse mapping, lymphatic anastomosis, and lymphovenular anastomosis are aimed at preventing or minimizing the disruption of lymphatic flow from the upper extremity. Few surgical procedures, such as the historical Charles procedure, as well as newer techniques including distal lymphaticovenular anastomosis, lymph node transfer, suction-assisted protein lipectomy, and low-level laser therapy exist. Nonsurgical treatments include complete decongestive therapy, pneumatic compression, Kinesio tape, and exercise. These have varying degrees of effectiveness but have limitations in patient compliance or availability of certified therapists.

Silicone breast implant associated fibromatosis

Abstract Extra-abdominal desmoid tumors, also known as aggressive or deep fibromatosis, are uncommon soft tissue tumors that rarely involve the breast. Although the exact etiology is unknown, the development of these tumors has been correlated with sites of previous trauma, surgery or in association with familial adenomatous polyposis. Clinically, breast fibromatosis is often mistaken for carcinoma but lacks metastatic potential. It is locally aggressive with high rates of recurrence. The treatment is primarily wide local excision with negative margins. Adjuvant treatments have been suggested and include radiotherapy, chemotherapy and hormonal therapy, however, there are no evidence-based treatment protocols to support their use. Here, we describe a case of fibromatosis that developed within the capsule around a silicone breast implant treated with surgical excision alone. The patient remains recurrence free at 3 months post-operative magnetic resonance imaging.

Cutting Healthcare Costs with Hematoma-Directed Ultrasound-Guided Breast Lumpectomy

AbstractBackgroundLocalization of nonpalpable breast lesions for breast-conserving surgery (BCS) remains highly variable and includes needle/wire localization (NL), radioactive seed localization, radar localization, and hematoma-directed ultrasound-guided (HUG) lumpectomy. The superiority of HUG lumpectomy over NL has been demonstrated repeatedly in terms of safety, accuracy, low positive margin rates, cosmesis, and patient satisfaction. In this study, we evaluate the cost effectiveness of HUG lumpectomy over NL for nonpalpable breast lesions.MethodsWe performed a retrospective review of 569 patients who underwent lumpectomy at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences from May 2014 through December 2017. Lumpectomies were stratified by localization technique, i.e. NL versus HUG. A cost-savings estimate was determined for the HUG localization technique, and a total amount of dollars saved over the study period was calculated.ResultsOverall, 569 lumpectomies were performed: 501 (88.0%) via HUG and 68 (12.0%) via NL. Intraoperative ultrasound was used in 566 operations (99.5%). Of the lumpectomies performed by HUG, 190 lesions (33.4%) were visible only on mammogram or breast magnetic resonance imaging prior to diagnostic core needle biopsy (CNB). Cost estimates comparing HUG with NL demonstrated a cost savings of

Advanced Locoregional Therapies in Breast

497.00 per procedure, the cost of preoperative needle localization by a radiologist, and a total of

Nipple Skin-Sparing Mastectomy is Feasible for Advanced Disease

94,430.00 for the study period.ConclusionIn utilizing HUG lumpectomy, the initial CNB serves as the diagnostic and localization procedure, thus saving time and a painful second procedure on the day of operation. HUG lumpectomy is safe, accurate, reduces healthcare costs, and results in a better patient experience for the surgical removal of nonpalpable breast lesions.

The SAVE Review: Sonographic Analysis Versus Excision for Axillary Staging in Breast Cancer

BackgroundAdvanced locoregional therapies continue to advance the treatment of breast cancer. These techniques are geared towards optimizing oncologic and aesthetic outcome as well as decreasing and treating morbidity. We present a selection of specialized locoregional therapies dedicated to the optimization of breast cancer treatment.MethodsLocoregional therapies for breast cancer are presented to address breast conservation techniques, lipofilling techniques, reconstruction techniques for nipple-sparing mastectomy, re-irradiating the breast, axillary reverse mapping, and vascularized lymph node transfer.ResultsWe present a synopsis of identified breast locoregional therapies targeted to address optimal oncologic and aesthetic outcome as well as decrease and treat morbidity.