Background: Surgical excision of a non-palpable breast lesion requires a localization step. Among available techniques, wire-guided localization (WGL) is most commonly used. Other techniques (radioactive, magnetic, radar or radiofrequency-based, and intraoperative ultrasound) have been developed in the last two decades with the aim of improving outcomes and logistics. Methods: We performed a systematic review on localization techniques for non-palpable breast cancer. Results: For most techniques, oncological outcomes such as lesion identification and clear margin rate seem either comparable with or better than for WGL, but evidence is limited to small cohort studies for some of the devices. Intraoperative ultrasound is associated with significantly higher negative margin rates in meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Radioactive techniques were studied in several RCTs and are non-inferior to WGL. Smaller studies show higher patient preference towards wire-free localization, but little is known about surgeons’ and radiologists’ attitudes towards these techniques. Conclusions: Large studies with an additional focus on patient, surgeon, and radiologist preference are necessary. This review aims to present the rationale for the MELODY (NCT05559411) study and to enable standardization of outcome measures for future studies.
Background: Difficulty in preoperatively assessing the risk for occult invasion or surgery that precludes future accurate axillary mapping in patients with ductal cancer in situ (DCIS) account for overutilization of SLND. Methods: Prospective, multicenter, cohort study, including women with any DCIS planned for mastectomy or DCIS grade 2 and > 20 mm, any DCIS grade 3, any mass-forming DCIS and any planned surgery. Patients received an interstitial SPIO injection during breast surgery, but no upfront SLND was performed. If invasion was identified on final pathology, delayed SLND (d-SLND) was performed separately with the coadministration of isotope ± blue dye (BD). Study outcomes were proportion of upfront SLNDs that were avoided, detection rates during d-SLND, and impact on healthcare costs. Results: In total, 78.7% of study participants (N = 254, mean age 60 years, mean DCIS size 37.8 mm) avoided upfront SLND. On d-SLND (median 28 days, range 9–46), SPIO outperformed Tc99 with (98.2% vs. 63.6%, p < 0.001) or without BD (92.7% vs. 50.9%, p < 0.001) and had higher nodal detection rate (86.9% vs. 32.3%, p < 0.001) and with BD (93.9% vs. 41.4%, p < 0.001). Only 27.9% of all SLNs retrieved were concordant for Tc99 and SPIO. Type of breast procedure (WLE vs. oncoplastic BCT vs. mastectomy) affected these outcomes and accounted for the low performance of Tc99 (p < 0.001). d-SLND resulted in a 28.1% total cost containment for women with pure DCIS on final pathology (4190 vs. 5828 USD, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Marking the SLN with SPIO may avoid overtreatment and allow for accurate d-SLND in patients with DCIS.
The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the association between mammographic density changes over time and the risk of breast cancer. We performed a systematic literature review based on the PubMed and ISI Web of Knowledge databases. A meta-analysis was conducted by computing extracted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for cohort studies or odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence interval using inverse variance method. Of the nine studies included, five were cohort studies that used HR as a measurement type for their statistical analysis and four were case–control or cohort studies that used OR as a measurement type. Increased breast density over time in cohort studies was associated with higher breast cancer risk (HR: 1.61; 95% CI: 1.33–1.96) whereas decreased breast density over time was associated with lower breast cancer risk (HR: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.71–0.87). Similarly, increased breast density over time was associated with higher breast cancer risk in studies presented ORs (pooled OR: 1.85; 95% CI: 1.29–2.65). Our findings imply that an increase in breast density over time seems to be linked to an increased risk of breast cancer, whereas a decrease in breast density over time seems to be linked to a lower risk of breast cancer.