BACKGROUND: Radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) with technetium-99 m colloid (ROLL-(99m)Tc) is commonly used to perform breast-conserving surgery in patients with nonpalpable breast tumors. Radioactive seed localization is a relatively new technique that localizes the tumor with a radioactive iodine-125 ((125)I) seed. The feasibility and outcome of these techniques after neoadjuvant systemic treatment has not been widely investigated. METHODS: All patients treated with neoadjuvant systemic treatment between 2007 and 2010 in the Netherlands Cancer Institute who underwent breast-conserving surgery with the ROLL-(99m)Tc technique (n = 83) or with (125)I seed localization (n = 71) were analyzed. The weight of the resected specimen, the margins, and the percentage of patients requiring a second surgical intervention as a result of positive margins were assessed. RESULTS: Patient and tumor characteristics and systemic treatment regimens were comparable between both groups. The median weight of the resected specimen (53 vs. 48 g), the median smallest margin (3.5 vs. 3.0 mm), and the risk for additional surgery for incomplete resections (7 vs. 8 %) did not differ significantly between patients treated with the ROLL-(99m)Tc technique and (125)I seed localization. CONCLUSIONS: The ROLL-(99m)Tc technique and (125)I seed localization demonstrate comparable results when used to perform breast-conserving surgery after neoadjuvant systemic treatment. Because (125)I seed localization does not require additional radiological localization shortly before surgery, it simplifies surgery scheduling. Therefore, we prefer (125)I seed localization to perform breast-conserving surgery after neoadjuvant systemic treatment.
BACKGROUND: Radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) with technetium-99 m colloid (ROLL-(99m)Tc) is commonly used to perform breast-conserving surgery in patients with nonpalpable breast tumors. Radioactive seed localization is a relatively new technique that localizes the tumor with a radioactive iodine-125 ((125)I) seed. The feasibility and outcome of these techniques after neoadjuvant systemic treatment has not been widely investigated. METHODS: All patients treated with neoadjuvant systemic treatment between 2007 and 2010 in the Netherlands Cancer Institute who underwent breast-conserving surgery with the ROLL-(99m)Tc technique (n = 83) or with (125)I seed localization (n = 71) were analyzed. The weight of the resected specimen, the margins, and the percentage of patients requiring a second surgical intervention as a result of positive margins were assessed. RESULTS:Patient and tumor characteristics and systemic treatment regimens were comparable between both groups. The median weight of the resected specimen (53 vs. 48 g), the median smallest margin (3.5 vs. 3.0 mm), and the risk for additional surgery for incomplete resections (7 vs. 8 %) did not differ significantly between patients treated with the ROLL-(99m)Tc technique and (125)I seed localization. CONCLUSIONS: The ROLL-(99m)Tc technique and (125)I seed localization demonstrate comparable results when used to perform breast-conserving surgery after neoadjuvant systemic treatment. Because (125)I seed localization does not require additional radiological localization shortly before surgery, it simplifies surgery scheduling. Therefore, we prefer (125)I seed localization to perform breast-conserving surgery after neoadjuvant systemic treatment.
Authors: Marieke E M van der Noordaa; Ileana Ioan; Emiel J Rutgers; Erik van Werkhoven; Claudette E Loo; Rosie Voorthuis; Jelle Wesseling; Japke van Urk; Terry Wiersma; Vincent Dezentje; Marie-Jeanne T F D Vrancken Peeters; Frederieke H van Duijnhoven Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 5.344
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
Authors: Guido Henke; Michael Knauer; Karin Ribi; Stefanie Hayoz; Marie-Aline Gérard; Thomas Ruhstaller; Daniel R Zwahlen; Simone Muenst; Markus Ackerknecht; Hanne Hawle; Florian Fitzal; Michael Gnant; Zoltan Mátrai; Bettina Ballardini; Andreas Gyr; Christian Kurzeder; Walter P Weber Journal: Trials Date: 2018-12-04 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Ariane A van Loevezijn; Marieke E M van der Noordaa; Marcel P M Stokkel; Erik D van Werkhoven; Emma J Groen; Claudette E Loo; Paula H M Elkhuizen; Gabe S Sonke; Nicola S Russell; Frederieke H van Duijnhoven; Marie-Jeanne T F D Vrancken Peeters Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-03-03 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Bas Pouw; Linda J de Wit-van der Veen; Daan Hellingman; Oscar R Brouwer; Marie-Jeanne Tfd Vrancken Peeters; Marcel Pm Stokkel; Renato A Valdés Olmos Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2014-05-03 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: José H Volders; Vera L Negenborn; Pauline E Spronk; Nicole M A Krekel; Linda J Schoonmade; Sybren Meijer; Isabel T Rubio; M Petrousjka van den Tol Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-12-06 Impact factor: 4.872