BACKGROUND: Wire localization (WL) of nonpalpable breast cancers on the day of surgery is uncomfortable for patients and impacts operating room efficiency. Radioactive seed localization (RSL) before the day of surgery avoids these disadvantages. In this study we compare outcomes of our initial 6-month experience with RSL to those with WL in the preceding 6 months. METHODS: Lumpectomies for invasive or intraductal cancers localized with a single (125)iodine seed (January-June 2012) were compared with those using 1 wire (July-December 2011). Surgeons and radiologists did not change. Positive and close margins were defined as tumor on ink and tumor ≤1 mm from ink, respectively. Demographic and clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared between RSL and WL patients. RESULTS: There were 431 RSL and 256 WL lumpectomies performed. Clinicopathologic characteristics did not differ between groups. Most seeds (90 %) were placed before the day of surgery. Positive margins were present in 7.7 % of RSL versus 5.5 % of WL patients, and 16.9 % of RSL versus 19.9 % of WL had close margins (p = 0.38). The median operative time was longer for lumpectomy and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in the RSL group (55 vs. 48 min, p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the volume of tissue excised between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In the first 6 months of RSL, operative scheduling was simplified, while rates of positive and close margins were similar to those seen after many years of experience with WL. Operative time was slightly longer for RSL lumpectomy and SLNB; we anticipate this will decrease with experience.
BACKGROUND: Wire localization (WL) of nonpalpable breast cancers on the day of surgery is uncomfortable for patients and impacts operating room efficiency. Radioactive seed localization (RSL) before the day of surgery avoids these disadvantages. In this study we compare outcomes of our initial 6-month experience with RSL to those with WL in the preceding 6 months. METHODS: Lumpectomies for invasive or intraductal cancers localized with a single (125)iodine seed (January-June 2012) were compared with those using 1 wire (July-December 2011). Surgeons and radiologists did not change. Positive and close margins were defined as tumor on ink and tumor ≤1 mm from ink, respectively. Demographic and clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared between RSL and WLpatients. RESULTS: There were 431 RSL and 256 WL lumpectomies performed. Clinicopathologic characteristics did not differ between groups. Most seeds (90 %) were placed before the day of surgery. Positive margins were present in 7.7 % of RSL versus 5.5 % of WLpatients, and 16.9 % of RSL versus 19.9 % of WL had close margins (p = 0.38). The median operative time was longer for lumpectomy and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in the RSL group (55 vs. 48 min, p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the volume of tissue excised between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In the first 6 months of RSL, operative scheduling was simplified, while rates of positive and close margins were similar to those seen after many years of experience with WL. Operative time was slightly longer for RSL lumpectomy and SLNB; we anticipate this will decrease with experience.
Authors: Rebecca L Klein; Julie A Mook; David M Euhus; Roshni Rao; Ralph T Wynn; Amy B Eastman; A Marilyn Leitch Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2011-11-17 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Lee J McGhan; Sara C McKeever; Barbara A Pockaj; Nabil Wasif; Marina E Giurescu; Heidi A Walton; Richard J Gray Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-09-27 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Tanja Alderliesten; Claudette E Loo; Kenneth E Pengel; Emiel J Th Rutgers; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs; Marie-Jeanne T F D Vrancken Peeters Journal: Breast J Date: 2011-09-12 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Peter J Lovrics; Charlie H Goldsmith; Nicole Hodgson; David McCready; Gabriela Gohla; Colm Boylan; Sylvie Cornacchi; Michael Reedijk Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-04-30 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Y E A van Riet; F H Jansen; M van Beek; C J H van de Velde; H J T Rutten; G A P Nieuwenhuijzen Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Janice S Sung; Valencia King; Cynthia M Thornton; Jennifer D Brooks; Charles W Fry; Mahmoud El-Tamer; Lawrence T Dauer; Edi Brogi; Jean M St Germain; Elizabeth A Morris Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2013-05-14 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Mila Donker; Caroline A Drukker; Renato A Valdés Olmos; Emiel J Th Rutgers; Claudette E Loo; Gabe S Sonke; Jelle Wesseling; Tanja Alderliesten; Marie-Jeanne T F D Vrancken Peeters Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2013-03-06 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Friedrich Kühn; Charlotte Emmi Elisabeth Simon; Ilhamiyya Aliyeva; Julia KUßMAUL; Jessica GROß; Oliver Schweizerhof; Jens-Uwe Blohmer; Maria Margarete Karsten Journal: In Vivo Date: 2020 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.155
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: Jennifer M Racz; Amy E Glasgow; Gary L Keeney; Amy C Degnim; Tina J Hieken; James W Jakub; John C Cheville; Elizabeth B Habermann; Judy C Boughey Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-07-04 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Erica V Bloomquist; Nicolas Ajkay; Sujata Patil; Abigail E Collett; Thomas G Frazier; Andrea V Barrio Journal: Breast J Date: 2015-12-23 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Mark J Dryden; Basak E Dogan; Patricia Fox; Cuiyan Wang; Dalliah M Black; Kelly Hunt; Wei Tse Yang Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2016-03-23 Impact factor: 3.959