P J Lovrics1, S D Cornacchi, R Vora, C H Goldsmith, K Kahnamoui. 1. Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton Health Sciences and St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, Canada. lovricsp@mcmaster.ca
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This systematic review examines whether radioguided localization surgery (RGL) (radioguided occult lesion localization - ROLL and radioguided seed localization - RSL) for non-palpable breast cancer lesions produces lower positive margin rates than standard wire-guided localization surgery. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature review to identify clinical studies using either ROLL or RSL. Included studies examined invasive or in situ BC and reported pathologically assessed margin status or specimen volume/weight. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility and quality and abstracted relevant data on patient and surgical outcomes. Quantitative data analyses were performed. RESULTS: Fifty-two clinical studies on ROLL (n = 46) and RSL (n = 6) were identified. Twenty-seven met our inclusion criteria: 12 studies compared RGL to WGL and 15 studies were single cohorts using RGL. Ten studies were included in the quantitative analyses. Data for margin status and re-operation rates from 4 randomized controlled trials (RCT; n = 238) and 6 cohort studies were combined giving a combined odds ratio (OR) of 0.367 and 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.277 to 0.487 (p < 0.001) for margins status and OR 0.347, 95% CI: 0.250 to 0.481 (p < 0.001) for re-operation rates. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this systematic review of RGL versus WGL demonstrate that RGL technique produces lower positive margins rates and fewer re-operations. While this review is limited by the small size and quality of RCTs, the odds ratios suggest that RGL may be a superior technique to guide surgical resection of non-palpable breast cancers. These results should be confirmed by larger, multi-centered RCTs.
BACKGROUND: This systematic review examines whether radioguided localization surgery (RGL) (radioguided occult lesion localization - ROLL and radioguided seed localization - RSL) for non-palpable breast cancer lesions produces lower positive margin rates than standard wire-guided localization surgery. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature review to identify clinical studies using either ROLL or RSL. Included studies examined invasive or in situ BC and reported pathologically assessed margin status or specimen volume/weight. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility and quality and abstracted relevant data on patient and surgical outcomes. Quantitative data analyses were performed. RESULTS: Fifty-two clinical studies on ROLL (n = 46) and RSL (n = 6) were identified. Twenty-seven met our inclusion criteria: 12 studies compared RGL to WGL and 15 studies were single cohorts using RGL. Ten studies were included in the quantitative analyses. Data for margin status and re-operation rates from 4 randomized controlled trials (RCT; n = 238) and 6 cohort studies were combined giving a combined odds ratio (OR) of 0.367 and 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.277 to 0.487 (p < 0.001) for margins status and OR 0.347, 95% CI: 0.250 to 0.481 (p < 0.001) for re-operation rates. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this systematic review of RGL versus WGL demonstrate that RGL technique produces lower positive margins rates and fewer re-operations. While this review is limited by the small size and quality of RCTs, the odds ratios suggest that RGL may be a superior technique to guide surgical resection of non-palpable breast cancers. These results should be confirmed by larger, multi-centered RCTs.
Authors: Christina Bluemel; Andreas Cramer; Christoph Grossmann; Georg W Kajdi; Uwe Malzahn; Nora Lamp; Heinz-Jakob Langen; Jan Schmid; Andreas K Buck; Hanns-Jörg Grimminger; Ken Herrmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-07-09 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Tanner K Hill; Asem Abdulahad; Sneha S Kelkar; Frank C Marini; Timothy E Long; James M Provenzale; Aaron M Mohs Journal: Bioconjug Chem Date: 2015-01-16 Impact factor: 4.774
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: Banghe Zhu; Grace Wu; Holly Robinson; Nathaniel Wilganowski; Mary A Hall; Sukhen C Ghosh; Kenneth L Pinkston; Ali Azhdarinia; Barrett R Harvey; Eva M Sevick-Muraca Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 3.488