BACKGROUND: Improved resolution and utilization of screening breast imaging has increased identification of nonpalpable high-risk lesions (HRL) and subsequent excisional breast biopsies (EBBs). Wire localization (WL), used most commonly for EBBs, may have shortcomings, including wire displacement, patient discomfort, limitations with incision planning and scheduling logistics. Radioactive seed localization (RSL) may overcome these drawbacks. The purpose of this study was to compare WL and RSL for EBBs for HRLs. METHODS: All single-site EBBs for HRL performed by four breast surgeons were retrospectively reviewed over two consecutive 1-year periods. Patients with cancer on percutaneous core biopsy (CB) were excluded. Clinicopathologic information, operative time, targeted lesion retrieval rate, and upstage rate were collected. RESULTS: A total of 324 EBBs for HRL were performed: 196 using WL and 128 using RSL. CB pathology was atypical hyperplasia in 56 % of WLs and 62 % of RSLs. The remaining pathologies were radial scar, papilloma, atypical papilloma or lobular carcinoma in situ. Mean age was 54 years. OR time was 27 ± 8 min for WL and 27 ± 7 min for RSL (p = 0.9). Upstage rate was 6 and 5 % for WLs and RSLs, respectively (p = 0.5). Targeted lesions were retrieved in 98 % of WL and 99 % of RSL (p = 0.5). SV was 37.2 ± 32.8 cm(3) and 25.7 ± 22.3 cm(3) for WL and RSL, respectively (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: RSL is comparable to WL for EBB of HRLs with similar OR times and upstage rates. SV is significantly decreased with RSL and may translate into improved cosmetic outcomes without sacrificing the diagnostic accuracy of the EBB.
BACKGROUND: Improved resolution and utilization of screening breast imaging has increased identification of nonpalpable high-risk lesions (HRL) and subsequent excisional breast biopsies (EBBs). Wire localization (WL), used most commonly for EBBs, may have shortcomings, including wire displacement, patient discomfort, limitations with incision planning and scheduling logistics. Radioactive seed localization (RSL) may overcome these drawbacks. The purpose of this study was to compare WL and RSL for EBBs for HRLs. METHODS: All single-site EBBs for HRL performed by four breast surgeons were retrospectively reviewed over two consecutive 1-year periods. Patients with cancer on percutaneous core biopsy (CB) were excluded. Clinicopathologic information, operative time, targeted lesion retrieval rate, and upstage rate were collected. RESULTS: A total of 324 EBBs for HRL were performed: 196 using WL and 128 using RSL. CB pathology was atypical hyperplasia in 56 % of WLs and 62 % of RSLs. The remaining pathologies were radial scar, papilloma, atypical papilloma or lobular carcinoma in situ. Mean age was 54 years. OR time was 27 ± 8 min for WL and 27 ± 7 min for RSL (p = 0.9). Upstage rate was 6 and 5 % for WLs and RSLs, respectively (p = 0.5). Targeted lesions were retrieved in 98 % of WL and 99 % of RSL (p = 0.5). SV was 37.2 ± 32.8 cm(3) and 25.7 ± 22.3 cm(3) for WL and RSL, respectively (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:RSL is comparable to WL for EBB of HRLs with similar OR times and upstage rates. SV is significantly decreased with RSL and may translate into improved cosmetic outcomes without sacrificing the diagnostic accuracy of the EBB.
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
Authors: Melanie Lindenberg; Anne van Beek; Valesca Retèl; Frederieke van Duijnhoven; Wim van Harten Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-05-13 Impact factor: 3.240