TY - JOUR
T1 - Radioactive Seed Localization Versus Wire Localization for Nonpalpable Breast Lesions
T2 - A Two-Year Initial Experience at a Large Community Hospital
AU - Stelle, Lacey
AU - Schoenheit, Taylor
AU - Brubaker, Allison
AU - Tang, Xiwei
AU - Qu, Peiyong
AU - Cradock, Kimberly
AU - Higham, Anna
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017, Society of Surgical Oncology.
PY - 2018/1/1
Y1 - 2018/1/1
N2 - Background: Radioactive seed localization (RSL) is a safe and effective alternative to wire localization (WL) for nonpalpable breast lesions. While several large academic institutions currently utilize RSL, few community hospitals have adopted this technique. Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the experience of RSL versus WL at a large community hospital. Methods: A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent RSL or WL for breast-conserving surgery from 1 November 2013 to 31 November 2015. Results: The total number of lesions examined was 382. RSL was utilized in 205 (54%) lesions, with 187 undergoing single RSL, while WL was used in 155 (40%) lesions, with 109 undergoing single WL; both techniques were used in 22 (6%) lesions. Pathology was benign in 142 (48%) lesions, with 93 RSLs and 49 WLs. For malignant lesions, mean specimen size was 36.3 g for single RSL and 35.9 g for single WL (p = 0.904). Re-excision for margin clearance was required for 16 (17%) malignant lesions in the RSL group and 10 (17%) in the WL group (p = 0.954). For malignant lesions, mean operating room time was 86 min for single RSL versus 70 min for single WL (p = 0.014). Conclusions: The use of RSL is a viable option in the community setting, with several benefits over WL. While operative times were slightly longer with RSL, there was no difference in specimen size or re-excision rate for malignant lesions.
AB - Background: Radioactive seed localization (RSL) is a safe and effective alternative to wire localization (WL) for nonpalpable breast lesions. While several large academic institutions currently utilize RSL, few community hospitals have adopted this technique. Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the experience of RSL versus WL at a large community hospital. Methods: A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent RSL or WL for breast-conserving surgery from 1 November 2013 to 31 November 2015. Results: The total number of lesions examined was 382. RSL was utilized in 205 (54%) lesions, with 187 undergoing single RSL, while WL was used in 155 (40%) lesions, with 109 undergoing single WL; both techniques were used in 22 (6%) lesions. Pathology was benign in 142 (48%) lesions, with 93 RSLs and 49 WLs. For malignant lesions, mean specimen size was 36.3 g for single RSL and 35.9 g for single WL (p = 0.904). Re-excision for margin clearance was required for 16 (17%) malignant lesions in the RSL group and 10 (17%) in the WL group (p = 0.954). For malignant lesions, mean operating room time was 86 min for single RSL versus 70 min for single WL (p = 0.014). Conclusions: The use of RSL is a viable option in the community setting, with several benefits over WL. While operative times were slightly longer with RSL, there was no difference in specimen size or re-excision rate for malignant lesions.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85033565649&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85033565649&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1245/s10434-017-6102-1
DO - 10.1245/s10434-017-6102-1
M3 - Article
C2 - 29134380
AN - SCOPUS:85033565649
SN - 1068-9265
VL - 25
SP - 131
EP - 136
JO - Annals of Surgical Oncology
JF - Annals of Surgical Oncology
IS - 1
ER -