Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton Health Sciences and St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011 May;37(5):388-97. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2011.01.018. Epub 2011 Feb 17.
This systematic review examines whether radioguided localization surgery (RGL) (radioguided occult lesion localization - ROLL and radioguided seed localization - RSL) for non-palpable breast cancer lesions produces lower positive margin rates than standard wire-guided localization surgery.
We performed a comprehensive literature review to identify clinical studies using either ROLL or RSL. Included studies examined invasive or in situ BC and reported pathologically assessed margin status or specimen volume/weight. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility and quality and abstracted relevant data on patient and surgical outcomes. Quantitative data analyses were performed.
Fifty-two clinical studies on ROLL (n = 46) and RSL (n = 6) were identified. Twenty-seven met our inclusion criteria: 12 studies compared RGL to WGL and 15 studies were single cohorts using RGL. Ten studies were included in the quantitative analyses. Data for margin status and re-operation rates from 4 randomized controlled trials (RCT; n = 238) and 6 cohort studies were combined giving a combined odds ratio (OR) of 0.367 and 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.277 to 0.487 (p < 0.001) for margins status and OR 0.347, 95% CI: 0.250 to 0.481 (p < 0.001) for re-operation rates.
The results of this systematic review of RGL versus WGL demonstrate that RGL technique produces lower positive margins rates and fewer re-operations. While this review is limited by the small size and quality of RCTs, the odds ratios suggest that RGL may be a superior technique to guide surgical resection of non-palpable breast cancers. These results should be confirmed by larger, multi-centered RCTs.
本系统评价研究了放射性核素引导下定位手术(RGL)(放射性核素引导隐匿性病变定位-ROLL 和放射性核素引导种植体定位-RSL)是否比标准导丝引导定位手术产生更低的阳性切缘率。
我们进行了全面的文献综述,以确定使用 ROLL 或 RSL 的临床研究。纳入的研究检查了浸润性或原位乳腺癌,并报告了病理评估的切缘状态或标本体积/重量。两名评审员独立评估研究的合格性和质量,并提取患者和手术结果的相关数据。进行了定量数据分析。
共确定了 52 项关于 ROLL(n=46)和 RSL(n=6)的临床研究。符合我们纳入标准的有 27 项研究:12 项研究比较了 RGL 与 WGL,15 项研究是单独使用 RGL 的队列研究。10 项研究纳入了定量分析。4 项随机对照试验(RCT;n=238)和 6 项队列研究的切缘状态和再手术率数据合并,得出的合并比值比(OR)为 0.367,95%置信区间(CI)为 0.277 至 0.487(p<0.001),用于切缘状态;OR 为 0.347,95%CI 为 0.250 至 0.481(p<0.001),用于再手术率。
这项关于 RGL 与 WGL 的系统评价结果表明,RGL 技术可降低阳性切缘率和减少再手术。尽管本评价受到 RCT 规模小和质量差的限制,但比值比表明,RGL 可能是指导非触诊性乳腺癌手术切除的一种优越技术。这些结果需要更大规模、多中心 RCT 来证实。