4.6 Review

Use of wire-guided and radio-guided occult lesion localization for non-palpable breast lesions: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of current evidence

Journal

ASIAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 45, Issue 1, Pages 79-88

Publisher

ELSEVIER SINGAPORE PTE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2021.06.055

Keywords

Impalpable breast cancers; Non-palpable breast cancers; Radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL); Radioguided surgery; Wire guided localization (WGL)

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to compare the outcomes of wire guided localisation (WGL) and radio-guided occult lesion localisation (ROLL) in the treatment of non-palpable breast lesions. The results showed that ROLL had advantages over WGL in terms of margin involvement, localisation, and operative time.
Breast cancer screening has seen an increase in the detection of non-palpable breast lesions. Wire guided localisation (WGL) and Radio-guided occult lesion localisation (ROLL) are well established modalities of localisation of non-palpable breast lesions in the UK. We aimed to compare the outcomes of WGL and ROLL in this updated meta-analysis. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and LILACS using free text search words as well as relevant MESH-terms. We also searched Medline (02/03/2021), Embase and registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field. Outcomes considered were re-excision rates, margin involvement, specimen volume and weight, accurate localisation of lesions and operative time. We assessed the risk of bias in included studies and performed random effects meta-analyses using Review Manager (version 5.3). Heterogeneity was estimated using the I-2-statistic. Nine included studies enrolled 1096 patients undergoing localization in breast surgery (534 in WGL and 562 in ROLL). There was a statistically significant benefit in favour of ROLL for non-involved resection margins (OR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.44-0.97); based on seven studies. Nine trials assessed operative time favouring ROLL (OR 1.95; 95% CI, 0.27-3.63). No significant difference in re-excision rates was reported (OR 1.42; 95% CI, 0.83-2.43) based on seven studies. Current evidence favourably supports ROLL, compared to WGL, with respect to margin involvement, localisation and operative time in the treatment of non-palpable breast lesions. (C) 2021 Asian Surgical Association and Taiwan Robotic Surgery Association. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available