Prospective randomized study comparing cryo-assisted and needle-wire localization of ultrasound-visible breast tumors

This study compared the surgical results of 2 localization methods—cryo-assisted localization (CAL) and needle-wire localization (NWL)—in patients undergoing breast lumpectomy for breast cancer. A total of 310 patients were treated in an institutional review board–approved study with 18 surgeons at...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The American journal of surgery 2006-10, Vol.192 (4), p.462-470
Hauptverfasser: Tafra, Lorraine, Fine, Richard, Whitworth, Pat, Berry, Michael, Woods, James, Ekbom, Gregory, Gass, Jennifer, Beitsch, Peter, Dodge, Daleela, Han, Linda, Potruch, Theodore, Francescatti, Darius, Oetting, Lori, Smith, J. Stanley, Snider, Howard, Kleban, Donna, Chagpar, Anees, Akbari, Stephanie
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:This study compared the surgical results of 2 localization methods—cryo-assisted localization (CAL) and needle-wire localization (NWL)—in patients undergoing breast lumpectomy for breast cancer. A total of 310 patients were treated in an institutional review board–approved study with 18 surgeons at 17 sites. Patients were randomized 2:1 to undergo either intraoperative CAL or NWL. A cryoprobe was inserted under ultrasound guidance in the operating room and an ice ball created an 8- to 10-mm margin around the lesion. The palpable ice ball then was dissected. NWL was placed according to institutional practice and resection was performed in a standard fashion. Surgical margins, complications, re-excisions, tissue volume, procedure times, ease of localization, specimen quality, and patient satisfaction were evaluated. Positive margins were defined as any type of disease present 1 mm or less from any specimen edge. Positive margin status did not differ between the 2 groups (28% vs. 31%). The volume of tissue removed was significantly less in the CAL group (49 vs. 66 mL, P = .002). Re-excisions were similar in both groups. CAL was superior in ease of lumpectomy, quality of specimen, acute surgical cosmesis, short-term cosmesis, patient satisfaction, and overall procedure time for the patient. CAL had a lower invasive positive margin rate (11% vs. 20%, P = .039) but a higher observed ductal carcinoma in situ–positive margin rate (30% vs. 18%, approaching statistical significance, P = .052). CAL is a preferred alternative to standard wire localization because it provides a palpable template, removes less tissue and improves cosmesis, decreases overall procedure time, and is more convenient for the patient and surgeon.
ISSN:0002-9610
1879-1883
DOI:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2006.06.012