TY - JOUR
T1 - Prospective randomized study comparing cryo-assisted and needle-wire localization of ultrasound-visible breast tumors
AU - Tafra, Lorraine
AU - Fine, Richard
AU - Whitworth, Pat
AU - Berry, Michael
AU - Woods, James
AU - Ekbom, Gregory
AU - Gass, Jennifer
AU - Beitsch, Peter
AU - Dodge, Daleela
AU - Han, Linda
AU - Potruch, Theodore
AU - Francescatti, Darius
AU - Oetting, Lori
AU - Smith, J. Stanley
AU - Snider, Howard
AU - Kleban, Donna
AU - Chagpar, Anees
AU - Akbari, Stephanie
N1 - Funding Information:
Supported by Sanarus Medical (Pleasanton, CA).
PY - 2006/10
Y1 - 2006/10
N2 - Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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). Conclusions: 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.
AB - Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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). Conclusions: 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33748431346&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33748431346&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2006.06.012
DO - 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2006.06.012
M3 - Article
C2 - 16978950
AN - SCOPUS:33748431346
SN - 0002-9610
VL - 192
SP - 462
EP - 470
JO - American Journal of Surgery
JF - American Journal of Surgery
IS - 4
ER -