↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Localization techniques for guided surgical excision of non‐palpable breast lesions

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

1 policy source
6 X users


152 Dimensions

Readers on

331 Mendeley
Localization techniques for guided surgical excision of non‐palpable breast lesions
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009206.pub2
Pubmed ID

Benjamin KY Chan, Jill A Wiseberg‐Firtell, Ramesh HS Jois, Katrin Jensen, Riccardo A Audisio


Breast cancer is the most common form of cancer and the second leading cause of death amongst women in Europe. Amongst five invasive cancers per 1000 women detected in screening, 2.7 were < 15 mm in diameter; and others reported that over one third of excised breast lesions were clinically occult. The challenge is to accurately locate small non-palpable lesions intraoperatively for optimal therapeutic outcome. A secondary important goal is to remove the smallest amount possible of healthy glandular tissue for optimal cosmesis. Currently the most widely adopted approach (80% in one survey) in guided breast-conserving surgery for excising non-palpable breast lesions is wire-guided localization (WGL). With the clinical setting shifting towards earlier non-palpable breast lesions being detected through screening, we investigated whether the current standard in assisting surgical excision of these lesions, WGL, yields the best therapeutic outcome for women with breast cancer. To assess the therapeutic outcomes of any new form of guided surgical intervention for non-palpable breast lesions against wire-guided localization, the current gold standard. We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's (CBCG) Specialized Register, MEDLINE (via PubMed), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal from the earliest available date up to 30 March 2015. We also handsearched recent conference proceedings and sought information from experts in the field. Two review authors, BC and RJ, independently screened by title and abstract the studies we had identified through the search strategy; when this was inconclusive, they examined the full-text article for inclusion. We resolved any discrepancies regarding eligibility by discussion with a third review author, RA. Three review authors, BC, JW, and RJ, independently extracted data using a standardized data sheet. We performed all analyses using Review Manager (RevMan) or the R meta package, and in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We reported results via a graphical assessment using forest plots showing the study estimates. We considered and discussed additional subgroup and sensitivity analyses. We identified 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that met the inclusion criteria of this Cochrane review and included eight trials in the meta-analyses. Six RCTs compared radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) versus WGL, and two RCTs compared radioactive iodine ((125)I) seed localization (RSL) versus WGL. Of the three remaining trials, one RCT compared cryo-assisted techniques (CAL) versus WGL, one compared intraoperative ultrasound-guided lumpectomy (IOUS) versus WGL, and one compared modified ROLL technique in combination with methylene dye (RCML) versus WGL. Of the trials we included in the meta-analysis, there were a total of 1273 participants with non-palpable breast lesions (627 participants (WGL); 443 participants (ROLL); and 203 participants (RSL)). The participant population varied considerably between included trials, which included participants with both non-palpable benign and malignant lesions, and varied in defining clear margins. The included trials did not report any long-term outcomes.In general, the outcomes of WGL, ROLL and RSL were comparable.ROLL demonstrated favourable results in successful localization (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16 to 2.28; 869 participants; six trials), positive excision margins (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.29; 517 participants; five trials), and re-operation rates (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.23; 583 participants; four trials) versus WGL, but none were statistically significant. WGL was significantly superior to RSL in successfully localizing non-palpable lesions (RR 3.85, 95% CI 1.21 to 12.19; 402 participants; two trials). However, for successful excision, ROLL and RSL have comparable outcomes versus WGL (ROLL versus WGL: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.01; 871 participants; six trials; RSL versus WGL: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.01; 402 participants; two trials). These findings were similar in that RSL demonstrated favourable results over WGL in positive tumour margins (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.06; 366 participants; two trials), and re-operation rates (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.32; 305 participants; one trial) but neither reached statistical significance. In contrast, WGL had fewer postoperative complications to both ROLL (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.98; 642 participants; four trials) and RSL (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.03; 305 participants; one trial), although this was also not statistically significant.The overall quality of evidence was good. The main risk of bias amongst included studies consisted of incomplete data sets, selective reporting, and allocation concealment. Interpretation and applicability of this meta-analysis was hindered by the mixed indication of diagnostic versus therapeutic purposes when undertaking WGL, ROLL, or RSL, leading to a high level of mixed pathology in numerous trials. Other limitations include underpowered studies, lack of data in standardized format for meta-analysis, lack of complete data amongst the trials, and absence of long-term data. Owing to a lack of trials in certain localization techniques, we could only draw conclusions about ROLL and RSL versus WGL. There is no clear evidence to support one guided technique for surgically excising a non-palpable breast lesion over another. Results from this Cochrane review support the continued use of WGL as a safe and tested technique that allows for flexibility in selected cases when faced with extensive microcalcification. ROLL and RSL could be offered to patients as a comparable replacement for WGL as they are equally reliable. Other techniques such as IOUS, RCML, and CAL are of academic interest, but recommendation for routine use in the clinical environment and oncological outcomes require further validation. The results of this Cochrane review also stress the need for more fully powered RCTs to evaluate the best technique according to the comprehensive criteria described, with a more consistent and standardized approach in outcome reporting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 331 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 329 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 42 13%
Student > Master 40 12%
Other 28 8%
Student > Bachelor 28 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 6%
Other 61 18%
Unknown 112 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 128 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 3%
Social Sciences 6 2%
Computer Science 5 2%
Other 33 10%
Unknown 124 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 April 2019.
All research outputs
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 399,777 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 246 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 399,777 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 246 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.