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

期刊

ASIAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 45, 期 1, 页码 79-88

出版社

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

关键词

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

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据