Evolution of localization methods for non-palpable breast lesions: a literature review from a translational medicine perspective.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

With an increasing number of non-palpable breast lesions detected due to improved screening, accurate localization of these lesions for surgery is crucial. This literature review explores the evolution of localization methods for non-palpable breast lesions, highlighting the translational journey from concept to clinical practice.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases until September 2023 was conducted.

KEY CONTENT AND FINDINGS

Multiple methods have been developed throughout the past few decades. (I) Wire-guided localization (WGL) introduced in 1966, has become a reliable method for localization. Its simplicity and cost-effectiveness are its key advantages, but challenges include logistical constraints, patient discomfort, and potential wire migration. (II) Intraoperative ultrasound localization (IOUS) has shown promise in ensuring complete lesion removal with higher negative margin rates. However, its utility is limited to lesions visible on ultrasound (US) imaging. (III) Breast biopsy marker localization: the use of markers has improved the precision of localization without the need for wire. However, marker visibility remains a challenge despite improvements in their design. (IV) Radioactive techniques: radio-guided occult lesion localization (ROLL) and radioactive seed localization (RSL) offer flexibility in scheduling and improved patient comfort. However, they require close multidisciplinary collaboration and specific equipment due to radioactive concerns. (V) Other wireless non-radioactive techniques: wireless non-radioactive techniques have been developed in recent three decades to provide flexible and patient-friendly alternatives. It includes magnetic seed localization, radar techniques, and radiofrequency techniques. Their usage has been gaining popularity due to their safety profile and allowance of more flexible scheduling. However, their high cost and need for additional training remain a barrier to a wider adoption.

CONCLUSIONS

The evolution of breast lesion localization methods has progressed to more patient-friendly techniques, each with its unique advantages and limitations. Future research on patient-reported outcomes, cosmetic outcomes, breast biopsy markers and integration of augmented reality with breast lesion localization are needed.