Literature DB >> 27007608

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

Mark J Dryden1, Basak E Dogan1, Patricia Fox2, Cuiyan Wang1,3, Dalliah M Black4, Kelly Hunt4, Wei Tse Yang1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the potential influence of imaging variables on surgical margins after preoperative radioactive seed localization (RSL) and wire localization (WL) techniques.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 565 women with 660 breast lesions underwent RSL or WL between May 16, 2012, and May 30, 2013. Patient age, lesion type (mass, calcifications, mass with associated calcifications, other), lesion size, number of seeds or wires used, surgical margin status (close positive or negative margins), and reexcision and mastectomy rates were recorded.
RESULTS: Of 660 lesions, 127 (19%) underwent RSL and 533 (81%) underwent WL preoperatively. Mean lesion size was 1.8 cm in the RSL group and 1.8 cm in the WL group (p = 0.35). No difference in lesion type was identified in the RSL and WL groups (p = 0.63). RSL with a single seed was used in 105 of 127 (83%) RSLs compared with WL with a single wire in 349 of 533 (65%) WLs (p = 0.0003). The number of cases with a close positive margin was similar for RSLs (26/127, 20%) and WLs (104/533, 20%) (p = 0.81). There was no difference between the RSL group and the WL group in close positive margin status (20% each, p = 0.81), reexcision rates (20% vs 16%, respectively; p = 0.36), or mastectomy rates (6% each, p = 0.96). Lesions containing calcifications were more likely to require more than one wire (odds ratio [OR], 4.44; 95% CI, 2.8-7.0) or more than one seed (OR, 7.03; 95% CI, 1.6-30.0) when compared with masses alone (p < 0.0001). Increasing lesion size and the presence of calcifications were significant predictors of positive margins, whereas the use of more than one wire or seed was not (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.5-1.5) (p = 0.75).
CONCLUSION: Close positive margin, reexcision, and mastectomy rates remained similar in the WL group and RSL group. The presence of calcifications and increasing lesion size increased the odds of a close positive margin in both the WL and RSL groups, whereas the use of one versus more than one seed or wire did not.

Entities:  

Keywords:  125I seed localization; breast cancer; mammography; ultrasound-guided wire localization; wire localization

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27007608      PMCID: PMC4852474          DOI: 10.2214/AJR.15.14715

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


  23 in total

Review 1.  Current status of radioactive seed for localization of non palpable breast lesions.

Authors:  James W Jakub; Richard J Gray; Amy C Degnim; Judy C Boughey; Mary Gardner; Charles E Cox
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2009-12-02       Impact factor: 2.565

Review 2.  Radioactive seed localization for non-palpable breast cancer.

Authors:  M W Barentsz; M A A J van den Bosch; W B Veldhuis; P J van Diest; R M Pijnappel; A J Witkamp; H M Verkooijen
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 6.939

3.  Monte Carlo simulation to analyze the cost-benefit of radioactive seed localization versus wire localization for breast-conserving surgery in fee-for-service health care systems compared with accountable care organizations.

Authors:  Vilert A Loving; David B Edwards; Kevin T Roche; Joseph R Steele; Stephen A Sapareto; Stephanie C Byrum; Donald F Schomer
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  A multicentered, randomized, controlled trial comparing radioguided seed localization to standard wire localization for nonpalpable, invasive and in situ breast carcinomas.

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

5.  Role for intraoperative margin assessment in patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery.

Authors:  Neslihan Cabioglu; Kelly K Hunt; Aysegul A Sahin; Henry M Kuerer; Gildy V Babiera; S Eva Singletary; Gary J Whitman; Merrick I Ross; Frederick C Ames; Barry W Feig; Thomas A Buchholz; Funda Meric-Bernstam
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2007-01-28       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 6.  Systematic review of radioguided surgery for non-palpable breast cancer.

Authors:  P J Lovrics; S D Cornacchi; R Vora; C H Goldsmith; K Kahnamoui
Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol       Date:  2011-02-17       Impact factor: 4.424

7.  Safety and efficacy of radioactive seed localization with I-125 prior to lumpectomy and/or excisional biopsy.

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

8.  Localizing high-risk lesions for excisional breast biopsy: a comparison between radioactive seed localization and wire localization.

Authors:  Emilia J Diego; Atilla Soran; Kandace P McGuire; Corinne Costellic; Ronald R Johnson; Marguerite Bonaventura; Gretchen M Ahrendt; Priscilla F McAuliffe
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2014-07-18       Impact factor: 5.344

9.  Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer.

Authors:  Meena S Moran; Stuart J Schnitt; Armando E Giuliano; Jay R Harris; Seema A Khan; Janet Horton; Suzanne Klimberg; Mariana Chavez-MacGregor; Gary Freedman; Nehmat Houssami; Peggy L Johnson; Monica Morrow
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-02-10       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Radioactive seed localization compared to wire localization in breast-conserving surgery: initial 6-month experience.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.