Literature DB >> 28257326

Radioactive Seed Localization or Wire-guided Localization of Nonpalpable Invasive and In Situ Breast Cancer: A Randomized, Multicenter, Open-label Trial.

Linnea Langhans1, Tove F Tvedskov, Thomas L Klausen, Maj-Britt Jensen, Maj-Lis Talman, Ilse Vejborg, Cemil Benian, Anne Roslind, Jonas Hermansen, Peter S Oturai, Niels Bentzon, Niels Kroman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the rate of positive resection margins between radioactive seed localization (RSL) and wire-guided localization (WGL) after breast conserving surgery (BCS).
BACKGROUND: WGL is the current standard for localization of nonpalpable breast lesions in BCS, but there are several difficulties related to the method.
METHODS: From January 1, 2014 to February 4, 2016, patients with nonpalpable invasive breast cancer or DCIS visible on ultrasound were enrolled in this randomized, multicenter, open-label clinical trial, and randomly assigned to RSL or WGL. The primary outcome was margin status after BCS. Secondary outcomes were duration of the surgical procedure, weight of surgical specimen, and patients' pain perception. Analyses were performed by intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol.
RESULTS: Out of 444 eligible patients, 413 lesions representing 409 patients were randomized; 207 to RSL and 206 to WGL. Twenty-three did not meet inclusion criteria, chose to withdraw, or had a change in surgical management and were excluded. The remaining 390 lesions constituted the ITT population. Here, resection margins were positive in 23 cases (11.8%) in the RSL group compared with 26 cases (13.3%) in the WGL group (P = 0.65). The per-protocol analysis revealed no difference in margin status (P = 0.62). There were no significant differences in the duration of the surgical procedure (P = 0.12), weight of the surgical specimen (P = 0.54) or the patients' pain perception (P = 0.28).
CONCLUSION: RSL offers a major logistic advantage, as localization can be done several days before surgery without any increase in positive resection margins compared with WGL.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28257326     DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002101

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg        ISSN: 0003-4932            Impact factor:   12.969


  14 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.  Real-time wireless tumor tracking during breast conserving surgery.

Authors:  Natasja Janssen; Roeland Eppenga; Marie-Jeanne Vrancken Peeters; Frederieke van Duijnhoven; Hester Oldenburg; Jos van der Hage; Emiel Rutgers; Jan-Jakob Sonke; Koert Kuhlmann; Theo Ruers; Jasper Nijkamp
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2017-11-13       Impact factor: 2.924

3.  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 4.  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

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.  Impact of deformation on a supine-positioned image-guided breast surgery approach.

Authors:  Winona L Richey; Jon S Heiselman; Ma Luo; Ingrid M Meszoely; Michael I Miga
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2021-08-12       Impact factor: 3.421

7.  An Audit on Oncological Safety with Magseed Localised Breast Conserving Surgery.

Authors:  Kirti Katherine Kabeer; S Manoj Gowda; Zatinahhayu Mohd-Isa; Megan Jane Renner Thomas; Vallipuram Gopalan; Sadaf Jafferbhoy; Soni Soumian; Sankaran Narayanan; Robert Kirby; Sekhar Marla
Journal:  Indian J Surg Oncol       Date:  2022-04-05

8.  Effectiveness and Safety of Magseed-localization for Excision of Breast Lesions: A Prospective, Phase IV Trial.

Authors:  Puneet Singh; Marion E Scoggins; Aysegul A Sahin; Rosa F Hwang; Henry M Kuerer; Abigail S Caudle; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Alastair M Thompson; Isabelle Bedrosian; Mediget Teshome; Sarah M DeSnyder; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Kelly K Hunt
Journal:  Ann Surg Open       Date:  2020-12

9.  Safety and feasibility of breast lesion localization using magnetic seeds (Magseed): a multi-centre, open-label cohort study.

Authors:  James R Harvey; Yit Lim; John Murphy; Miles Howe; Julie Morris; Amit Goyal; Anthony J Maxwell
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2018-02-16       Impact factor: 4.872

10.  Evaluation of the nonradioactive inducible magnetic seed system Magseed for preoperative localization of nonpalpable breast lesions - initial clinical experience.

Authors:  Karolina Pieszko; Mateusz Wichtowski; Marcin Cieciorowski; Robert Jamont; Dawid Murawa
Journal:  Contemp Oncol (Pozn)       Date:  2020-03-13
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.