BACKGROUND: This study compared the surgical results of 2 localization methods-cryo-assisted localization (CAL) and needle-wire localization (NWL)-inpatients undergoing breast lumpectomy for breast cancer. METHODS: A total of 310 patients were treated in an institutional review board-approved study with 18 surgeons at 17 sites. Patients were randomized 2:1 to undergo either intraoperative CAL or NWL. A cryoprobe was inserted under ultrasound guidance in the operating room and an ice ball created an 8- to 10-mm margin around the lesion. The palpable ice ball then was dissected. NWL was placed according to institutional practice and resection was performed in a standard fashion. Surgical margins, complications, re-excisions, tissue volume, procedure times, ease of localization, specimen quality, and patient satisfaction were evaluated. Positive margins were defined as any type of disease present 1 mm or less from any specimen edge. RESULTS:Positive margin status did not differ between the 2 groups (28% vs. 31%). The volume of tissue removed was significantly less in the CAL group (49 vs. 66 mL, P = .002). Re-excisions were similar in both groups. CAL was superior in ease of lumpectomy, quality of specimen, acute surgical cosmesis, short-term cosmesis, patient satisfaction, and overall procedure time for the patient. CAL had a lower invasive positive margin rate (11% vs. 20%, P = .039) but a higher observed ductal carcinoma in situ-positive margin rate (30% vs. 18%, approaching statistical significance, P = .052). CONCLUSIONS:CAL is a preferred alternative to standard wire localization because it provides a palpable template, removes less tissue and improves cosmesis, decreases overall procedure time, and is more convenient for the patient and surgeon.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: This study compared the surgical results of 2 localization methods-cryo-assisted localization (CAL) and needle-wire localization (NWL)-in patients undergoing breast lumpectomy for breast cancer. METHODS: A total of 310 patients were treated in an institutional review board-approved study with 18 surgeons at 17 sites. Patients were randomized 2:1 to undergo either intraoperative CAL or NWL. A cryoprobe was inserted under ultrasound guidance in the operating room and an ice ball created an 8- to 10-mm margin around the lesion. The palpable ice ball then was dissected. NWL was placed according to institutional practice and resection was performed in a standard fashion. Surgical margins, complications, re-excisions, tissue volume, procedure times, ease of localization, specimen quality, and patient satisfaction were evaluated. Positive margins were defined as any type of disease present 1 mm or less from any specimen edge. RESULTS: Positive margin status did not differ between the 2 groups (28% vs. 31%). The volume of tissue removed was significantly less in the CAL group (49 vs. 66 mL, P = .002). Re-excisions were similar in both groups. CAL was superior in ease of lumpectomy, quality of specimen, acute surgical cosmesis, short-term cosmesis, patient satisfaction, and overall procedure time for the patient. CAL had a lower invasive positive margin rate (11% vs. 20%, P = .039) but a higher observed ductal carcinoma in situ-positive margin rate (30% vs. 18%, approaching statistical significance, P = .052). CONCLUSIONS:CAL is a preferred alternative to standard wire localization because it provides a palpable template, removes less tissue and improves cosmesis, decreases overall procedure time, and is more convenient for the patient and surgeon.
Authors: Steven P Poplack; Gary M Levine; Lisa Henry; Wendy A Wells; F Scott Heinemann; Cheryl M Hanna; Daniel R Deneen; Tor D Tosteson; Richard J Barth Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Rebekah H Conley; Ingrid M Meszoely; Jared A Weis; Thomas S Pheiffer; Lori R Arlinghaus; Thomas E Yankeelov; Michael I Miga Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2015-06-20 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Rachel R Bitton; Elena Kaye; Frederick M Dirbas; Bruce L Daniel; Kim Butts Pauly Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-12-14 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Robert Milligan; Andrew Pieri; Adam Critchley; Richard Peace; Tom Lennard; J M O'Donoghue; Rachel Howitt; Stewart Nicholson; Henry Cain; George Petrides; Nidhi Sibal Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Benjamin K Y Chan; Jill A Wiseberg-Firtell; Ramesh H S Jois; Katrin Jensen; Riccardo A Audisio Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2015-12-31
Authors: S van Esser; N H G M Peters; M A A J van den Bosch; W P Th M Mali; P H M Peeters; I H M Borel Rinkes; R van Hillegersberg Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-05-13 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Rick G Pleijhuis; Maurits Graafland; Jakob de Vries; Joost Bart; Johannes S de Jong; Gooitzen M van Dam Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2009-07-17 Impact factor: 5.344