BACKGROUND: It is important to optimize the localization technique for non-palpable breast lesions. METHODS:One hundred consecutive women with non-palpable breast lesions were randomized to radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) or wire localization (WL). For ROLL technique (99m)Tc-labeled particles of human serum albumin were injected under breast-imaging control. Localization of the lesion was done in the operating room with the aid of a gamma-probe. All lesions were identified in an X-ray control of the surgical specimen. Categorical variables were analyzed with the Chi-square method. Significance was considered at P < 0.05. RESULTS: All procedures were performed on the same day of excision, on ambulatory basis. Both techniques resulted in 100% retrieval of the lesions. Localization time was reduced with ROLL (P < 0.001). Clear margins were achieved in 88.9% ROLLs and 62.5% WLs (P < 0.05) reducing the requirement of re-excision. There were significant differences in the subjective ease of the procedures in favor of ROLL technique as rated by surgeons and radiologists. CONCLUSIONS:ROLL technique is as effective as WL for excision of non-palpable breast lesions, reduce localization time and probably the incidence of pathologically involved margins of excision. ROLL appears to improve the learning curve for surgical residents and cosmesis. ROLL is an attractive alternative to WL.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: It is important to optimize the localization technique for non-palpable breast lesions. METHODS: One hundred consecutive women with non-palpable breast lesions were randomized to radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) or wire localization (WL). For ROLL technique (99m)Tc-labeled particles of human serum albumin were injected under breast-imaging control. Localization of the lesion was done in the operating room with the aid of a gamma-probe. All lesions were identified in an X-ray control of the surgical specimen. Categorical variables were analyzed with the Chi-square method. Significance was considered at P < 0.05. RESULTS: All procedures were performed on the same day of excision, on ambulatory basis. Both techniques resulted in 100% retrieval of the lesions. Localization time was reduced with ROLL (P < 0.001). Clear margins were achieved in 88.9% ROLLs and 62.5% WLs (P < 0.05) reducing the requirement of re-excision. There were significant differences in the subjective ease of the procedures in favor of ROLL technique as rated by surgeons and radiologists. CONCLUSIONS: ROLL technique is as effective as WL for excision of non-palpable breast lesions, reduce localization time and probably the incidence of pathologically involved margins of excision. ROLL appears to improve the learning curve for surgical residents and cosmesis. ROLL is an attractive alternative to WL.
Authors: M H Yilmaz; F Kilic; G E Icten; F Aydogan; V Ozben; M Halac; D C Olgun; E Gazioglu; V Celik; C Uras; Z A Altug Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 3.039
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: 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