Breast Cancer

, Volume 25, Issue 5, pp 575–582 | Cite as

Evaluation of the dislocation and long-term sonographic detectability of a hydrogel-based breast biopsy site marker

  • Naomi Sakamoto
  • Eisuke Fukuma
  • Yuko Tsunoda
  • Ko Teraoka
  • Yoshitomo Koshida
Original Article



To evaluate the usefulness of the HydroMARK, a hydrogel-based breast biopsy site marker for ultrasound localization of breast lesions, we investigated the tendency for dislocation and sonographic detectability of the marker placed in patients.

Materials and methods

The marker was placed in lesions that were expected to become obscured after biopsy for a suspicious breast lesion or after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. The patients consented to return for a repeat ultrasound ± mammography examination, and the degree of displacement of the marker was measured as the marker-to-residual lesion distance.


The marker was placed after stereotactic biopsy, ultrasound-guided biopsy, and before/during neoadjuvant chemotherapy, in 11, 22, and 7 lesions, respectively. Surgical resection was performed for 22 of the 40 lesions, while remaining 18 benign lesions were followed. The marker was sonographically detectable in 89.7% (35/39), 100% (35/35), and 100% (18/18) of the cases, respectively, at a median of 8 days, 13 weeks, and 11 months after the deployment. The degree of displacement was lower in the ultrasound-guided placement group than in the stereotactic placement group (median displacement: 0 vs. 4.3 mm; p = 0.001), it was also lower in the core-needle biopsy and neoadjuvent therapy cases than in the vacuum-assisted biopsy cases (p = 0.003). At a median interval of 2.5 months after deployment, the marker remained unchanged in location in all cases (n = 18, p = NS).


The HydroMARK appears to be a safe and effective marker with the advantageous characteristics of a low tendency for dislocation with time and long-term sonographic detectability.


HydroMARK Breast biopsy marker Sonographic visibility Ultrasound localization Neoadjuvant chemotherapy 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gittleman MA. Single-step ultrasound localization of breast lesions and lumpectomy procedure. Am J Surg. 2003;186(4):386–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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 andradio active seed localization for non-palpable breast lesions. J Surg Oncol. 2012;105(6):591–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blumencranz PW, Ellis D, Barlowe K. Use of hydrogel breast biopsy tissue markers reduces the need for wire localization. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(10):3273–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gentile LF, Himmler A, Shaw CM, Bouton A, Vorhis E, Marshall J, et al. Ultrasound-guided segmental mastectomy and excisional biopsy using hydrogel-encapsulated clip localization as an alternative to wire localization. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23(10):3284–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pinkney D, Shah A. Prospective comparative study to evaluate the sonographic visibility of five commercially available breast biopsy markers. J Diagn Med Sonography. 2013;29(4):151–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sakamoto N, Ogawa Y, Tsunoda Y, Fukuma E. Evaluation of the sonographic visibility and sonographic appearance of the breast biopsy marker (UltraClip®) placed in phantoms and patients. Breast Cancer. 2017;24(4):585–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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(3):435–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ahmed M, van Hemelrijck M, Douek M. Systematic review of radioguided versus wire-guided localization in the treatment of non-palpable breast cancers. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;140(2):241–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pinkney DM, Mychajlowycz M, Shah BA. A prospective comparative study to evaluate the displacement of four commercially available breast biopsy markers. Br J Radiol. 1065;2016(89):20160149. Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rosen EL, Vo TT. Metallic clip deployment during stereotactic breast biopsy: retrospective analysis. Radiology. 2001;218(2):510–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liberman L, Dershaw DD, Morris EA, Abramson AF, Thornton CM, Rosen PP. Clip placement after stereotactic vacuumassisted breast biopsy. Radiology. 1997;205:417–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Breast Cancer Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Breast Center, Kameda Medical CenterKamogawaJapan

Personalised recommendations