Preoperative Magnetic Seed Versus Wire-Guided Localization in the Treatment of Nonpalpable Breast Cancer: A Retrospective Observational Study at a Tertiary Care Center.

IF 3 Q4 ONCOLOGY
International Journal of Breast Cancer Pub Date : 2025-09-12 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1155/ijbc/9960666
Amedeo Villanucci, Francesca Romana Ferranti, Sonia Cappelli, Flavia Cavicchi, Franco Graziano, Federica Lauria, Fabio Pelle, Ilaria Puccica, Isabella Sperduti, Antonello Vidiri, Claudio Botti
{"title":"Preoperative Magnetic Seed Versus Wire-Guided Localization in the Treatment of Nonpalpable Breast Cancer: A Retrospective Observational Study at a Tertiary Care Center.","authors":"Amedeo Villanucci, Francesca Romana Ferranti, Sonia Cappelli, Flavia Cavicchi, Franco Graziano, Federica Lauria, Fabio Pelle, Ilaria Puccica, Isabella Sperduti, Antonello Vidiri, Claudio Botti","doi":"10.1155/ijbc/9960666","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Breast cancer screening and effective neoadjuvant treatments have increased surgeries for nonpalpable tumors, often requiring preoperative localization. The wire-guided method, performed on the same day as surgery, has limitations, prompting interest in wire-free alternatives like magnetic seed devices. <b>Methods:</b> A retrospective single-center study (November 2020-March 2024) compared magnetic seed and wire-guided localization in 558 patients. The primary aim was to assess localization and retrieval success, resection margins, and reoperation rates. Secondary endpoints included the interval between localization and surgery, operative time, incision site selection, and volume excised. <b>Results:</b> Among 558 patients, 188 underwent magnetic seed and 370 wire-guided localizations. Both groups were similar in BMI, breast size, and lesion characteristics. Complications in the wire-guided group included device migration (0.5%) and hematoma (1.3%). Success rates were comparable (98.9% vs. 99.7%), as were positive margins (5.3% vs. 6.7%) and reoperation rates (6.9% vs. 7.8%). Excised volume was significantly lower in the magnetic seed group (24.2 [range 6.5-48.0 cm<sup>3</sup>] vs. 41.5 cm<sup>3</sup> [range 16.0-68.0 cm<sup>3</sup>], <i>p</i> < 0.001). The magnetic seed group had an average localization-to-surgery interval of 1 day (range 0-160 days). <b>Conclusions:</b> Magnetic seed localization is as safe and effective as wire-guided localization, with comparable success rates and resection margins adequacy. Its primary advantage is scheduling flexibility, offering a longer interval between localization and surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":46159,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Breast Cancer","volume":"2025 ","pages":"9960666"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12449098/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Breast Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/ijbc/9960666","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Breast cancer screening and effective neoadjuvant treatments have increased surgeries for nonpalpable tumors, often requiring preoperative localization. The wire-guided method, performed on the same day as surgery, has limitations, prompting interest in wire-free alternatives like magnetic seed devices. Methods: A retrospective single-center study (November 2020-March 2024) compared magnetic seed and wire-guided localization in 558 patients. The primary aim was to assess localization and retrieval success, resection margins, and reoperation rates. Secondary endpoints included the interval between localization and surgery, operative time, incision site selection, and volume excised. Results: Among 558 patients, 188 underwent magnetic seed and 370 wire-guided localizations. Both groups were similar in BMI, breast size, and lesion characteristics. Complications in the wire-guided group included device migration (0.5%) and hematoma (1.3%). Success rates were comparable (98.9% vs. 99.7%), as were positive margins (5.3% vs. 6.7%) and reoperation rates (6.9% vs. 7.8%). Excised volume was significantly lower in the magnetic seed group (24.2 [range 6.5-48.0 cm3] vs. 41.5 cm3 [range 16.0-68.0 cm3], p < 0.001). The magnetic seed group had an average localization-to-surgery interval of 1 day (range 0-160 days). Conclusions: Magnetic seed localization is as safe and effective as wire-guided localization, with comparable success rates and resection margins adequacy. Its primary advantage is scheduling flexibility, offering a longer interval between localization and surgery.

术前磁种子与导线导引定位治疗不可触及乳腺癌:一项三级保健中心的回顾性观察研究。
背景:乳腺癌筛查和有效的新辅助治疗增加了不可触及肿瘤的手术,通常需要术前定位。在手术当天进行的导线引导方法有其局限性,促使人们对磁性种子装置等无导线替代方法产生兴趣。方法:一项回顾性单中心研究(2020年11月- 2024年3月)比较了558例患者的磁种子和导线引导定位。主要目的是评估定位和检索成功、切除边缘和再手术率。次要终点包括定位和手术之间的时间间隔、手术时间、切口位置的选择和切除的体积。结果:558例患者中,188例接受了磁种子定位,370例接受了导线引导定位。两组在BMI、乳房大小和病变特征上相似。钢丝引导组的并发症包括器械移动(0.5%)和血肿(1.3%)。成功率相当(98.9%对99.7%),阳性边缘(5.3%对6.7%)和再手术率(6.9%对7.8%)。磁性种子组的切除体积明显较低(24.2[范围6.5-48.0 cm3] vs. 41.5 cm3[范围16.0-68.0 cm3], p < 0.001)。磁性种子组定位至手术的平均间隔为1天(范围0-160天)。结论:磁种子定位与线导定位一样安全有效,成功率和切除范围相当。它的主要优点是调度灵活性,提供更长的定位和手术之间的间隔。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Breast Cancer is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that provides a forum for scientists, clinicians, and health care professionals working in breast cancer research and management. The journal publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies related to molecular pathology, genomics, genetic predisposition, screening and diagnosis, disease markers, drug sensitivity and resistance, as well as novel therapies, with a specific focus on molecular targeted agents and immune therapies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信