Literature DB >> 25794081

Radioactive seed localization versus wire localization for lumpectomies: a comparison of outcomes.

Danielle Sharek1, Margarita L Zuley, Janie Yue Zhang, Atilla Soran, Gretchen M Ahrendt, Marie A Ganott.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of radioactive seed localization (RSL) versus wire localization using surgical margin size, reexcision and reoperation rates, specimen size, radiology resource utilization, and cosmesis as measures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent RSL before segmental mastectomy from April 1, 2011, to March 1, 2012, for biopsy-proven cancer were selected. Each was matched using tumor size, type, and surgeon to a wire localization control case, resulting in 232 cases. Width of the closest surgical margin, reexcision rate, and reoperation rate were compared as were the ratios of tumor volume to initial surgical specimen volume and tumor volume to all surgically excised volume (including reexcisions and reoperations). Cosmetic outcome was analyzed by comparison of Harvard scores and specimen volume with breast volume. Radiology resource utilization was compared before and after RSL implementation.
RESULTS: No significant differences between methods were found in closest surgical margin (RSL mean, 0.45 cm; wire localization mean, 0.45 cm; p=0.972), reexcision rate (RSL mean, 21.1%; wire localization mean, 26.3%; p=0.360), reoperation rate (RSL, 11.4%; wire localization, 12.7%; p=0.841), ratio of the tumor volume to initial surgical specimen volume (RSL mean, 0.027; wire localization mean, 0.028; p=0.886), ratio of the tumor volume to total volume resected (RSL mean, 0.024; wire localization mean, 0.024; p=0.997), or in clinical or computed cosmesis scores (clinical p=0.5; calculated p=0.060). There was a 34% increase in scheduled biopsy slot utilization, 50% savings in time spent scheduling, and a 4.1-day average decrease in biopsy wait time after RSL institution.
CONCLUSION: RSL is an acceptable alternative to wire localization and offers significant improvements in workflow.

Entities:  

Keywords:  localization; lumpectomy; seed; surgical margins; wire

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25794081     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.14.12743

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  17 in total

Review 1.  Update of the American Society of Breast Surgeons Toolbox to address the lumpectomy reoperation epidemic.

Authors:  Maureen P McEvoy; Jeffrey Landercasper; Himani R Naik; Sheldon Feldman
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2018-12

2.  Budget Impact Analysis of Preoperative Radioactive Seed Localization.

Authors:  Wyanne Law; Nicole Look Hong; Ananth Ravi; Lisa Day; Yasmin Somani; Frances C Wright; Sharon Nofech-Mozes; William T Tran; Belinda Curpen
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-09-01       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 3.  Innovations in image-guided preoperative breast lesion localization.

Authors:  Ellen Cheang; Richard Ha; Cynthia M Thornton; Victoria L Mango
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-02-06       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Preoperative radioactive seed localization of nonpalpable soft tissue masses: an established localization technique with a new application.

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

5.  Intraoperative Pathologic Margin Analysis and Re-Excision to Minimize Reoperation for Patients Undergoing Breast-Conserving Surgery.

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

6.  Utilization of iron (III)-doped nanoshells for in vivo marking of nonpalpable tumors using a VX2 rabbit model.

Authors:  Erin P Ward; James Wang; Natalie Mendez; Jian Yang; Chris Barback; Jessica Wang-Rodriguez; William Trogler; Andrew C Kummel; Sarah Blair
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2016-09-30       Impact factor: 2.565

Review 7.  Current status of ultrasound-guided surgery in the treatment of breast cancer.

Authors:  José H Volders; Max H Haloua; Nicole Ma Krekel; Sybren Meijer; Petrousjka M van den Tol
Journal:  World J Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-02-10

8.  Combined LOCalizer™ and Intraoperative Ultrasound Localization: First Experience in Localization of Non-palpable Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Simona Parisi; Roberto Ruggiero; Giorgia Gualtieri; Mariachiara Lanza Volpe; Serena Rinaldi; Giusiana Nesta; Lidija Bogdanovich; Francesco Saverio Lucido; Salvatore Tolone; Domenico Parmeggiani; Claudio Gambardella; Ludovico Docimo
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2021 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.155

9.  Radioactive seed localization compared with wire-guided localization of non-palpable breast carcinoma in breast conservation surgery- the first experience in the United Kingdom.

Authors:  Robert Milligan; Andrew Pieri; Adam Critchley; Richard Peace; Tom Lennard; J M O'Donoghue; Rachel Howitt; Stewart Nicholson; Henry Cain; George Petrides; Nidhi Sibal
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-11-16       Impact factor: 3.039

10.  Imaging Factors That Influence Surgical Margins After Preoperative 125I Radioactive Seed Localization of Breast Lesions: Comparison With Wire Localization.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.