Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://repository.monashhealth.org/monashhealthjspui/handle/1/47506
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorTaylor D.B.-
dc.contributor.authorBourke A.G.-
dc.contributor.authorWestcott E.J.-
dc.contributor.authorMarinovich M.L.-
dc.contributor.authorChong C.Y.L.-
dc.contributor.authorLiang R.-
dc.contributor.authorHughes R.L.-
dc.contributor.authorElder E.-
dc.contributor.authorSaunders C.M.-
dc.date.accessioned2022-05-05T01:51:59Z-
dc.date.available2022-05-05T01:51:59Z-
dc.date.copyright2021-
dc.date.issued2022-04-28en
dc.identifier.citationBritish Journal of Surgery. 108(1) (pp 40-48), 2021. Date of Publication: 01 Jan 2021.-
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.monashhealth.org/monashhealthjspui/handle/1/47506-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Previous studies have suggested improved efficiency and patient outcomes with 125I seed compared with hookwire localization (HWL) in breast-conserving surgery, but high-level evidence of superior surgical outcomes is lacking. The aim of this multicentre pragmatic RCT was to compare re-excision and positive margin rates after localization using 125I seed or hookwire in women with non-palpable breast cancer. Method(s): Between September 2013 and March 2018, women with non-palpable breast cancer eligible for breast-conserving surgery were assigned randomly to preoperative localization using 125I seeds or hookwires. Randomization was stratified by lesion type (pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or other) and study site. Primary endpoints were rates of re-excision and margin positivity. Secondary endpoints were resection volumes and weights. Result(s): A total of 690 women were randomized at eight sites; 659 women remained after withdrawal (125I seed, 327; HWL, 332). Mean age was 60.3 years in the 125I seed group and 60.7 years in the HWL group, with no difference between the groups in preoperative lesion size (mean 13.2 mm). Lesions were pure DCIS in 25.9 per cent. The most common radiological lesion types were masses (46.9 per cent) and calcifications (28.2 per cent). The localization modality was ultrasonography in 65.5 per cent and mammography in 33.7 per cent. The re-excision rate after 125I seed localization was significantly lower than for HWL (13.9 versus 18.9 per cent respectively; P = 0.019). There were no significant differences in positive margin rates, or in specimen weights and volumes. Conclusion(s): Re-excision rates after breast-conserving surgery were significantly lower after 125I seed localization compared with HWL. Registration number: ACTRN12613000655741 (http://www.ANZCTR.org.au/).Copyright © 2020 The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.-
dc.publisherOxford University Press-
dc.relation.ispartofBritish Journal of Surgery-
dc.subject.meshbreast cancer-
dc.subject.meshbreast-conserving surgery-
dc.subject.meshcalcification-
dc.subject.meshcancer surgery-
dc.subject.meshdrug withdrawal-
dc.subject.meshductal breast carcinoma in situ-
dc.subject.meshechography-
dc.subject.meshexcision-
dc.subject.meshmammography-
dc.subject.meshplant seed-
dc.subject.meshpreoperative evaluation-
dc.subject.meshrandomization-
dc.subject.meshiodine 125-
dc.titleSurgical outcomes after radioactive 125I seed versus hookwire localization of non-palpable breast cancer: a multicentre randomized clinical trial.-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.affiliationMonash University - School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health-
dc.type.studyortrialClinical trial-
dc.identifier.doihttp://monash.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znaa008-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdom-
dc.identifier.pubmedid33640932 [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=33640932]-
dc.identifier.institution(Taylor, Saunders) Breast Clinic, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, WA, Australia-
dc.identifier.institution(Taylor, Bourke, Saunders) Division of Surgery, Medical School, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia-
dc.identifier.institution(Taylor, Bourke) BreastScreen Wa, Perth, WA, Australia-
dc.identifier.institution(Bourke) Breast Centre, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Perth, WA, Australia-
dc.identifier.institution(Westcott) Department of Medical Technology and Physics, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Perth, WA, Australia-
dc.identifier.institution(Westcott) School of Physics, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia-
dc.identifier.institution(Marinovich) School of Public Health, Curtin University, Bentley, Perth, WA, Australia-
dc.identifier.institution(Marinovich) Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia-
dc.identifier.institution(Chong) Monash Health School of Clinical Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia-
dc.identifier.institution(Liang) Department of Surgery, Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service, Robina, QLD, Australia-
dc.identifier.institution(Hughes) Radiology Department, Waikato District Health Board, Hamilton, New Zealand-
dc.identifier.institution(Elder) Westmead Breast Cancer Institute, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, Sydney, NSW, Australia-
dc.identifier.institution(Saunders) Breast Centre, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Murdoch, Perth, WA, Australia-
dc.identifier.institution(Saunders) Department of Surgery, St John of God Hospital, Subiaco, Perth, WA, Australia-
dc.identifier.affiliationmh(Chong) Monash Health School of Clinical Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.openairetypeArticle-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
Appears in Collections:Articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

32
checked on Jan 11, 2025

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in Monash Health Research Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.