BACKGROUND: The current study sought to validate radioactive seed localization (RSL) as an alternative to wire localization (WL) to facilitate the operative excision of nonpalpable breast lesions. METHODS: One hundred consecutive patients underwent preoperative WL and the next 100 RSL. Margins were considered negative if > or =2 mm from in situ and invasive disease. RESULTS: RSL resulted in 100% retrieval of the seeds and lesions. Sixty-eight percent of patients underwent RSL at least 1 day before surgery. RSL resulted in a 35% relative improvement in the rate of negative margins in the first specimen (P = 0.01) and a 62% relative improvement in the rate of reoperation for positive margins (P = 0.01). The sentinel lymph node (SLN) identification rate was 100% in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: RSL is effective and safe, and this procedure significantly improved the rate of negative margins in the first specimen and the rate of reoperation for positive margins compared to WL. We highly favor RSL over WL.
BACKGROUND: The current study sought to validate radioactive seed localization (RSL) as an alternative to wire localization (WL) to facilitate the operative excision of nonpalpable breast lesions. METHODS: One hundred consecutive patients underwent preoperative WL and the next 100 RSL. Margins were considered negative if > or =2 mm from in situ and invasive disease. RESULTS:RSL resulted in 100% retrieval of the seeds and lesions. Sixty-eight percent of patients underwent RSL at least 1 day before surgery. RSL resulted in a 35% relative improvement in the rate of negative margins in the first specimen (P = 0.01) and a 62% relative improvement in the rate of reoperation for positive margins (P = 0.01). The sentinel lymph node (SLN) identification rate was 100% in both groups. CONCLUSIONS:RSL is effective and safe, and this procedure significantly improved the rate of negative margins in the first specimen and the rate of reoperation for positive margins compared to WL. We highly favor RSL over WL.
Authors: Alexander Liberman; Zhe Wu; Christopher V Barback; Robert Viveros; Sarah L Blair; Lesley G Ellies; David R Vera; Robert F Mattrey; Andrew C Kummel; William C Trogler Journal: ACS Nano Date: 2013-07-01 Impact factor: 15.881
Authors: Hillary W Garner; Joseph M Bestic; Jeffrey J Peterson; Steven Attia; Daniel E Wessell Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2016-11-24 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Erica V Bloomquist; Nicolas Ajkay; Sujata Patil; Abigail E Collett; Thomas G Frazier; Andrea V Barrio Journal: Breast J Date: 2015-12-23 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: H Paul Martinez; Yuko Kono; Sarah L Blair; Sergio Sandoval; Jessica Wang-Rodriguez; Robert F Mattrey; Andrew C Kummel; William C Trogler Journal: Medchemcomm Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 3.597
Authors: E Belloni; C Canevari; P Panizza; A Marassi; M Rodighiero; S Tacchini; V Zuber; I Sassi; L Gianolli; F Fazio; A Del Maschio Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2011-03-07 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Alexander Liberman; H Paul Martinez; Casey N Ta; Christopher V Barback; Robert F Mattrey; Yuko Kono; Sarah L Blair; William C Trogler; Andrew C Kummel; Zhe Wu Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2012-04-11 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: Stephen P Povoski; Ryan L Neff; Cathy M Mojzisik; David M O'Malley; George H Hinkle; Nathan C Hall; Douglas A Murrey; Michael V Knopp; Edward W Martin Journal: World J Surg Oncol Date: 2009-01-27 Impact factor: 2.754
Authors: James O Murphy; Tracy-Ann Moo; Tari A King; Kimberly J Van Zee; Kristine A Villegas; Michelle Stempel; Anne Eaton; Jean M St Germain; Elizabeth Morris; Monica Morrow Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2013-08-14 Impact factor: 5.344