A cosmesis outcome substudy in a prospective, randomized trial comparing radioguided seed localization with standard wire localization for nonpalpable, invasive, and in situ breast carcinomas.

Elena Parvez, Sylvie D Cornacchi, Nicole Hodgson, Achilleas Thoma, Iwa Kong, Gary Foster, Ji Cheng, Charlie H Goldsmith, Dyda Dao, Peter J Lovrics

Journal: American journal of surgery 2015;208(5):711-718

PMID: 25201587

Full Text on Elsevier Science View on PubMed

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The primary study objective was to compare the cosmetic result of radioguided seed localization (RSL) with wire localization (WL).

METHODS

A subgroup of patients enrolled in a multicentered, randomized trial comparing WL with RSL participated. Frontal photographs were taken 1 and 3 years postsurgery. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Cosmetic Rating System was used to evaluate cosmesis outcomes by the patient and a panel of 5 raters.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 73 patients (WL, n = 38; RSL, n = 35). Most patients rated their overall cosmesis as "excellent" or "good" (76% WL, 80% RSL). Patient and panel ratings on all cosmetic outcomes were similar between groups. Multivariable regression for overall cosmesis found larger specimen volume and reoperation to be predictors of worse ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

All cosmetic outcomes assessed were similar after WL and RSL. The comparable outcomes may reflect similar reoperation rates and volumes of excision between groups.

Address: Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.; Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Department of Surgical Oncology, Hamilton Health Sciences and Juravinski Hospital and Cancer Centre, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Department of Oncology, Hamilton Health Sciences and Juravinski Hospital and Cancer Centre, Hamilton, ON, Canada.; Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Department of Surgery, St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, ON, Canada.; Department of Oncology, Hamilton Health Sciences and Juravinski Hospital and Cancer Centre, Hamilton, ON, Canada.; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University and Biostatistics Unit, St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, ON, Canada.; Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University and Biostatistics Unit, St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada.; Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Department of Surgical Oncology, Hamilton Health Sciences and Juravinski Hospital and Cancer Centre, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Department of Oncology, Hamilton Health Sciences and Juravinski Hospital and Cancer Centre, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Department of Surgery, St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, ON, Canada. Electronic address: [email protected].

DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2014.05.030

Link outs

Free resources

Medical:

https://medlineplus.gov/breastcancer.html

Other Literature Sources:

https://scite.ai/reports/25201587

Subscription / membership required

Full Text Sources:

MeSH Terms: Aged, Breast Neoplasms, Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast, Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating, Esthetics, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Iodine Radioisotopes, Mastectomy, Segmental, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Radionuclide Imaging, Radiopharmaceuticals, Treatment Outcome