Robert Milligan1, Andrew Pieri1, Adam Critchley1, Richard Peace2, Tom Lennard1, J M O'Donoghue1, Rachel Howitt3, Stewart Nicholson1, Henry Cain1, George Petrides2, Nidhi Sibal2. 1. 1 Department of Cellular Pathology,Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust , Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust , Newcastle Upon Tyne , UK. 2. 2 Department of Breast Surgery,Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust , Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust , Newcastle Upon Tyne , UK. 3. 3 Directorate of Radiology,Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust , Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust , Newcastle Upon Tyne , UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In the UK, guidewires have traditionally been used for localization of non-palpable breast lesions in patients undergoing breast conservation surgery (BCS). Radioactive seed localization (RSL) using Iodine-125 seeds is an alternative localization method and involves inserting a titanium capsule, containing radioactive Iodine-125, into the breast lesion. We aim to demonstrate feasibility of RSL compared with guidewire-localization (GWL) for BCS in the UK. METHODS: Data were collected on 100 patients with non-palpable unifocal invasive carcinoma of the breast undergoing GWL WLE prior to the introduction of RSL and the first 100 patients treated with RSL WLE. Statistical comparisons were made using Χ2-squared analysis or unpaired two-sample t-test. Significance was determined to be at p ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: Mean total tumour size was 19.44 mm (range: 5-55) in the GWL group and 18.61 mm (range: 3.8-59) in the RSL group (p = 0.548), while mean total specimen excision weight was significantly lower in the RSL group; 31.55 g (range: 4.5-112) vs 37.42 g (range: 7.8-157.1) (p = 0.018). Although 15 patients had inadequate surgical resection margins in the GWL group compared the 13 in the RSL group (15 vs 13%, respectively, p = 0.684), 10 of the patients in the GWL group had invasive carcinoma present resulting in at least one positive margin compared with only 3 patients in the RSL group (10 vs 3%, respectively, p = 0.045). CONCLUSION: In this study, RSL is shown to be non-inferior to the use of GWL for non-palpable carcinoma in patients undergoing BCS and we suggest that it could be introduced successfully in other breast units. Advances in knowledge: Here we have demonstrated the use of RSL localization results in significant lower weight resection specimens of breast carcinoma when compared with a matched group using GWL, without any significant differences in oncological outcome between the groups.
OBJECTIVE: In the UK, guidewires have traditionally been used for localization of non-palpable breast lesions in patients undergoing breast conservation surgery (BCS). Radioactive seed localization (RSL) using Iodine-125 seeds is an alternative localization method and involves inserting a titanium capsule, containing radioactive Iodine-125, into the breast lesion. We aim to demonstrate feasibility of RSL compared with guidewire-localization (GWL) for BCS in the UK. METHODS: Data were collected on 100 patients with non-palpable unifocal invasive carcinoma of the breast undergoing GWL WLE prior to the introduction of RSL and the first 100 patients treated with RSLWLE. Statistical comparisons were made using Χ2-squared analysis or unpaired two-sample t-test. Significance was determined to be at p ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: Mean total tumour size was 19.44 mm (range: 5-55) in the GWL group and 18.61 mm (range: 3.8-59) in the RSL group (p = 0.548), while mean total specimen excision weight was significantly lower in the RSL group; 31.55 g (range: 4.5-112) vs 37.42 g (range: 7.8-157.1) (p = 0.018). Although 15 patients had inadequate surgical resection margins in the GWL group compared the 13 in the RSL group (15 vs 13%, respectively, p = 0.684), 10 of the patients in the GWL group had invasive carcinoma present resulting in at least one positive margin compared with only 3 patients in the RSL group (10 vs 3%, respectively, p = 0.045). CONCLUSION: In this study, RSL is shown to be non-inferior to the use of GWL for non-palpable carcinoma in patients undergoing BCS and we suggest that it could be introduced successfully in other breast units. Advances in knowledge: Here we have demonstrated the use of RSL localization results in significant lower weight resection specimens of breast carcinoma when compared with a matched group using GWL, without any significant differences in oncological outcome between the groups.
Authors: Roshni Rao; Amy Moldrem; Venetia Sarode; John White; Matt Amen; Madhu Rao; Valerie Andrews; David Euhus; Lee Radford; Michael Ulissey Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2010-06-10 Impact factor: 5.344
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: E L Postma; H M Verkooijen; S van Esser; M G Hobbelink; G P van der Schelling; R Koelemij; A J Witkamp; C Contant; P J van Diest; S M Willems; I H M Borel Rinkes; M A A J van den Bosch; W P Mali; R van Hillegersberg Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2012-09-30 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: B Pouw; I M C van der Ploeg; S H Muller; R A Valdés Olmos; L K Janssen-Pinkse; H S A Oldenburg; M T F D Vrancken Peeters Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2014-10-27 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Antonio Mariscal Martínez; Montse Solà; Anna Pérez de Tudela; Juan Francisco Julián; Manuel Fraile; Sara Vizcaya; Jaume Fernández Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Mila Donker; Marieke E Straver; Jelle Wesseling; Claudette E Loo; Margaret Schot; Caroline A Drukker; Harm van Tinteren; Gabe S Sonke; Emiel J Th Rutgers; Marie-Jeanne T F D Vrancken Peeters Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Aik Hao Ng; Mohammed S Alqahtani; Layal K Jambi; Sarah L Bugby; John E Lees; Alan C Perkins Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-04-24 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Marie Colombe Agahozo; Sofie A M Berghuis; Esther van den Broek; Linetta B Koppert; Inge-Marie Obdeijn; Carolien H M van Deurzen Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-06-23 Impact factor: 5.344