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

Overview

Journal AJR Am J Roentgenol

Specialties Oncology
Radiology

Date 2016 Mar 24

PMID 27007608

Citations 3

Authors

Mark J Dryden

Basak E Dogan

Patricia Fox

Cuiyan Wang

Dalliah M Black

Kelly Hunt

Wei Tse Yang

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

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.

Citing Articles

Radioactive Seed Localization for Nonpalpable Breast Lesions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Ferreira H, de Souza C, Pozzo L, Ribeiro M, Rostelato M Diagnostics (Basel). 2024; 14(4).

PMID: 38396480 PMC: 10887864. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14040441.

Analysis of the Influencing Factors of Tumor Volume, Body Immunity, and Poor Prognosis after I Particle Therapy for Differentiated Thyroid Cancer.

Tan L, Chen Z, Wang W, Su Y, Wu Z, Yi L Mediators Inflamm. 2023; 2023:8130422.

PMID: 37181804 PMC: 10171980. DOI: 10.1155/2023/8130422.

Exploiting the advantages of a wireless seed localization system that differentiates between the seeds: Breast cancer resection following neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Shaughnessy E, Vijapura C, Reyna C, Lewis J, Lewis K, Lee S Cancer Rep (Hoboken). 2022; 6(1):e1690.

PMID: 35940632 PMC: 9875611. DOI: 10.1002/cnr2.1690.

References

Cabioglu N, Hunt K, Sahin A, Kuerer H, Babiera G, Singletary S . Role for intraoperative margin assessment in patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007; 14(4):1458-71. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-006-9236-0. View

Jakub J, Gray R, Degnim A, Boughey J, Gardner M, Cox C . Current status of radioactive seed for localization of non palpable breast lesions. Am J Surg. 2009; 199(4):522-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.05.019. View

Lovrics P, Cornacchi S, Vora R, Goldsmith C, Kahnamoui K . Systematic review of radioguided surgery for non-palpable breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011; 37(5):388-97. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2011.01.018. View

Lovrics P, Goldsmith C, Hodgson N, McCready D, Gohla G, Boylan C . A multicentered, randomized, controlled trial comparing radioguided seed localization to standard wire localization for nonpalpable, invasive and in situ breast carcinomas. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011; 18(12):3407-14. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-011-1699-y. View

Barentsz M, van den Bosch M, Veldhuis W, van Diest P, Pijnappel R, Witkamp A . Radioactive seed localization for non-palpable breast cancer. Br J Surg. 2013; 100(5):582-8. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.9068. View

Sung J, King V, Thornton C, Brooks J, Fry C, El-Tamer M . Safety and efficacy of radioactive seed localization with I-125 prior to lumpectomy and/or excisional biopsy. Eur J Radiol. 2013; 82(9):1453-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.04.008. View

Murphy J, Moo T, King T, Van Zee K, Villegas K, Stempel M . Radioactive seed localization compared to wire localization in breast-conserving surgery: initial 6-month experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013; 20(13):4121-7. PMC: 4003499. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-013-3166-4. View

Moran M, Schnitt S, Giuliano A, Harris J, Khan S, Horton J . 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. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32(14):1507-15. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2013.53.3935. View

Loving V, Edwards D, Roche K, Steele J, Sapareto S, Byrum S . 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. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014; 202(6):1383-8. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.13.11368. View

10.

Diego E, Soran A, McGuire K, Costellic C, Johnson R, Bonaventura M . Localizing high-risk lesions for excisional breast biopsy: a comparison between radioactive seed localization and wire localization. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014; 21(10):3268-72. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-014-3912-2. View

11.

Sharek D, Zuley M, Zhang J, Soran A, Ahrendt G, Ganott M . Radioactive seed localization versus wire localization for lumpectomies: a comparison of outcomes. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015; 204(4):872-7. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.14.12743. View

12.

Skinner K, SILBERMAN H, Sposto R, Silverstein M . Palpable breast cancers are inherently different from nonpalpable breast cancers. Ann Surg Oncol. 2001; 8(9):705-10. DOI: 10.1007/s10434-001-0705-1. View

13.

Gray R, Salud C, Nguyen K, Dauway E, Friedland J, BERMAN C . Randomized prospective evaluation of a novel technique for biopsy or lumpectomy of nonpalpable breast lesions: radioactive seed versus wire localization. Ann Surg Oncol. 2001; 8(9):711-5. DOI: 10.1007/s10434-001-0711-3. View

14.

Staradub V, Rademaker A, Morrow M . Factors influencing outcomes for breast conservation therapy of mammographically detected malignancies. J Am Coll Surg. 2003; 196(4):518-24. DOI: 10.1016/S1072-7515(02)01833-1. View

15.

Chagpar A, Yen T, Sahin A, Hunt K, Whitman G, Ames F . Intraoperative margin assessment reduces reexcision rates in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ treated with breast-conserving surgery. Am J Surg. 2003; 186(4):371-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9610(03)00264-2. View

16.

Homer M . Needle localization of occult breast lesions with a curved-end retractable wire: technique and pitfalls. Radiology. 1986; 161(2):547-8. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.161.2.3763930. View

17.

DAVIS P, Wechsler R, Feig S, March D . Migration of breast biopsy localization wire. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1988; 150(4):787-8. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.150.4.787. View

18.

DeLong E, Delong D, Clarke-Pearson D . Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988; 44(3):837-45. View

19.

Cady B, Stone M, Schuler J, Thakur R, Wanner M, Lavin P . The new era in breast cancer. Invasion, size, and nodal involvement dramatically decreasing as a result of mammographic screening. Arch Surg. 1996; 131(3):301-8. DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.1996.01430150079015. View

20.

Chadwick D, Shorthouse A . Wire-directed localization biopsy of the breast: an audit of results and analysis of factors influencing therapeutic value in the treatment of breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1997; 23(2):128-33. DOI: 10.1016/s0748-7983(97)80005-4. View