Brief Reports should be submitted online to www.editorialmanager.com/ amsurg. (See details online under ''Instructions for Authors''.) They should be no more than 4 double-spaced pages with no Abstract or sub-headings, with a maximum of four (4) references. If figures are included, they should be limited to two (2). The cost of printing color figures is the responsibility of the author.In general, authors of case reports should use the Brief Report format.

With the development of expertise in image guidance for breast surgery, many surgeons now perform preoperative wire localization themselves. Use of a single wire versus multiple wires to bracket a radiographic breast abnormality has previously been described, although benefits of this technique based on clinical outcomes such as margin status, tissue volume removed, and re-excision rates have not been established. This study is a retrospective analysis of wire-localized breast biopsies performed by 14 surgeons over 29 months; stereotactic and ultrasound guidance were used. During this time, 489 wire localizations were done, of which 159 used multiple wires. Two hundred eleven of these biopsies were done for malignant disease, 86 using multiple wires. After controlling for tumor node metastases stage, single and multiple wire placements were compared using endpoints of margin status, need for re-excision, and total volume of tissue removed. Neither margin status nor re-excision was related to the number of wires placed. However, the number of wires placed was significantly related to the total volume of tissue removed. Use of more than one localizing wire was associated with greater volume of tissue removal (measured in centimeters cubed) in benign disease (46 vs 25, P < 0.001), equivalent volumes in stage 0 disease (73 vs 67), less volume in stage 1 disease (113 vs 164), and less volume in stages 2 through 4 (158 vs 207, P = 0.03). Outcomes based on surgeon case volume during the study period demonstrated that low- (1–40), medium- (41–80), and high-volume (>80) surgeons did not differ in the type or stage of breast pathology treated. Surgeons with high case volumes were more likely to place multiple localizing wires ( P < 0.001) and were more likely to do a breast-conserving procedure if re-excision was performed ( P < 0.018). Surgeons with low case volumes were more likely to perform a re-excision ( P < 0.025). Surgeon experience has a positive impact on quality outcome measures such as performance of a definitive procedure at the time of initial surgery and use of breast-conserving procedures at the time of re-excision. Multiple wire localization can be used to significantly reduce the volume of breast tissue removed in malignant disease without sacrificing margin status or increasing the need for future re-excision.

The purpose of this study was to review the clinical presentation and outcome of women who present with large or locally invasive (T4) breast carcinoma. This retrospective study was conducted at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, a state tertiary care referral institution. One hundred twenty-nine women between the ages of 28 and 85 years (mean, 55 years) presented with T4 breast carcinoma. Follow-up was available for 128 women. Only 23 women have survived (18%), 5 of whom (21.7%) have metastatic disease. Mean survival for those who died was 21.6 months, compared to 76.3 months for survivors. Survival was not influenced by tumor characteristics ( P > 0.5), but was strongly influenced by nodal status ( P < 0.001) and by the presence of metastases at the time of diagnosis ( P < 0.001). Survival was strongly related to mode of therapy ( P < 0.01), but this was principally related to very high mortality rates in women who received no therapy (100%), surgery only (92.3%), or chemotherapy only (95%). The best survival was seen in women who received chemotherapy prior to surgery (40%); their survival was superior to that of women treated initially by surgery, followed by chemotherapy (16.3%, P = 0.04). However, when women who presented with metastatic disease were excluded, survival was not different between these two groups ( P = 0.18). Despite public education efforts and the wide availability of screening programs for breast carcinoma, many women still present with locally advanced disease. Outcome can be favorable in the absence of node involvement or metastatic disease, even in the presence of large, fungating tumors. Multimodality therapy gives the best results, but early surgery may be required for progression of disease during chemotherapy or because of extensive ulceration at initial presentation.

These results support SCNB as an alternative to open biopsy and show the reliability of SCNB when benign pathology is obtained. However, given the possibility of sampling error and the nature of breast disease, close mammographic and clinical follow-up is necessary. The false-negative rate and negative predictive value in this series compare favorably with those in other reports, supporting the fact that surgeons can confidently use SCNB in the evaluation and treatment of breast disease.

Stereotactic core needle biopsy (SCNB) is a sensitive and specific indicator of breast pathology. Commonly the first biopsy core is taken from the center of the lesion in question. Multiple cores are then taken from points peripheral to the central core. The sensitivity and specificity of the central core to diagnose breast disease is unclear. We compared the pathology of the central core biopsy with that of the remaining cores in a prospective study to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the central core to diagnose breast disease. All patients undergoing SCNB for breast lesions in a single surgical office during a 7-month period were eligible for inclusion. One hundred thirty-three patients with first cores from 145 biopsy sites were included. The histologic diagnosis from 117 (81%) of the first cores from these 145 biopsy sites were representative of their respective samples as a whole. Seventy-seven (53%) of the first cores were in complete agreement with the final histologic diagnosis whereas 40 (28%) had minor differences with the histologic diagnosis that had little or no clinical significance. Twenty-eight (19%) central core samples did not agree with the final pathologic diagnosis. Seven of these 28 patients each had a final diagnosis of cancer missed by the central core biopsy. The first core sample had a sensitivity for cancer detection of 79 per cent and specificity 100 per cent. SCNB remains a sensitive and specific identifier of breast pathology. When mammographic evidence of calcifications was the primary indication for SCNB (n = 75) calcification was present in the central core in 51 (68%). In these 51 patients the central core biopsy was in agreement with the final histologic diagnosis in 46 (90%) specimens. Histologic review of the first core sample alone lends no increased benefits and in fact misrepresents the pathology present in a significant number of patients. When analyzed as an independent predictor of breast pathology the first core is a more sensitive indicator than subsequent individual cores, but the most accurate predictor of pathology is examination of the entire group of core samples. This study confirms the need for acquisition of multiple cores from each lesion in question.