BACKGROUND: Studies suggest radioguided seed localization (RSL) yields fewer positive margins than wire-guided localization (WL). The goal of this study is to determine whether RSL is superior to WL. METHODS:Women with confirmed invasive or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) undergoing localization and breast conserving surgery were enrolled. Outcomes measured include positive margin and reoperation rates, specimen weight, operative and localization times, and surgeon and radiologist ranking of procedural difficulty. RESULTS: Randomization was centralized, concealed, and stratified by surgeon with 153 patients in the WL group and 152 in RSL group. Localizations were performed using either ultrasound (70%) or mammographic guidance (30%). Pathology was either DCIS (18%) or invasive carcinoma (82%). Procedures were performed at 3 sites, by 7 surgeons. Only difference found for patient and tumor characteristics was more multifocal disease in RSL group. Using intention-to-treat analysis, there were no differences in positive margins rates for RSL (10.5%) and WL (11.8%), (P=.99) or for positive or close margins (<1 mm) (RSL 19% and WL 22%; P=.61). Mean operative time (minutes) was shorter for RSL (RSL 19.4 vs WL 22.2; P<.001). Specimen volume, weight, reoperation and localization times were similar. Surgeons ranked the seed technique as easier (P=.008), while radiologists ranked them similarly. Patient's pain rankings during wire localization were higher (P=.038). CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to other trials positive margin and reoperation rates were similar for RSL and WL. However, for RSL operative times were shorter, and the technique was preferred by surgeons, making it an acceptable method for localization.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Studies suggest radioguided seed localization (RSL) yields fewer positive margins than wire-guided localization (WL). The goal of this study is to determine whether RSL is superior to WL. METHODS:Women with confirmed invasive or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) undergoing localization and breast conserving surgery were enrolled. Outcomes measured include positive margin and reoperation rates, specimen weight, operative and localization times, and surgeon and radiologist ranking of procedural difficulty. RESULTS: Randomization was centralized, concealed, and stratified by surgeon with 153 patients in the WL group and 152 in RSL group. Localizations were performed using either ultrasound (70%) or mammographic guidance (30%). Pathology was either DCIS (18%) or invasive carcinoma (82%). Procedures were performed at 3 sites, by 7 surgeons. Only difference found for patient and tumor characteristics was more multifocal disease in RSL group. Using intention-to-treat analysis, there were no differences in positive margins rates for RSL (10.5%) and WL (11.8%), (P=.99) or for positive or close margins (<1 mm) (RSL 19% and WL 22%; P=.61). Mean operative time (minutes) was shorter for RSL (RSL 19.4 vs WL 22.2; P<.001). Specimen volume, weight, reoperation and localization times were similar. Surgeons ranked the seed technique as easier (P=.008), while radiologists ranked them similarly. Patient's pain rankings during wire localization were higher (P=.038). CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to other trials positive margin and reoperation rates were similar for RSL and WL. However, for RSL operative times were shorter, and the technique was preferred by surgeons, making it an acceptable method for localization.
Authors: Santosh K Somasundaram; Shelley Potter; Suzanne Elgammal; Anthony J Maxwell; Amtul S Sami; Sue K Down; Rajiv V Dave; James Harvey Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-09-10 Impact factor: 4.872
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