ArticleClinical imaging2023
Preoperative localization of breast lesions: Comparing digital breast tomosynthesis-guided radioactive seed localization versus standard 2D stereotactic radioactive seed localization.
Article in Clinical imaging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare single seed digital breast tomosynthesis-guided radioseed localization (DBT-L) to standard 2D stereotactic-guided radioseed localization (SGL) of the breast.
methodsA retrospective review of a large tertiary cancer center's database yielded 68 women who underwent preoperative DBT-L from March 2019-December 2019 and a matched cohort of 65 women who underwent SGL during the same period. The electronic medical record and radiology were reviewed for patient characteristics including breast density, exam technique, pre- and post-operative pathology, exam duration, and radiation dose to the patient. To compare margin outcomes between the groups, the chi-square test of independence was used; to compare continuous outcomes such as exam duration and total dose, the Wilcoxon rank sum test was used.
resultsDBT-L and SGL localization targets included biopsy marker (62/68, 91% vs 55/65, 85%), distortion (4/68, 6% vs 2/65, <3%), focal asymmetry (1/68 and 1/65, < 2% for both), calcifications (1/68, <2% vs 4/65, 6%), and anatomic landmarks (0% vs 3/65, 5%). 72% and 71% of localizations were performed for malignant pathology in the DBT-L and SGL groups, respectively. The median duration of DBT-L was 8.3 min vs 10.3 min for SGL, representing statistically significant time savings (p = 0.003). The median total organ dose of DBT-L was 8.6 mGy vs 10.4 mGy for SGL, representing statistically significant dose savings (p = 0.018). The incidence of positive margins at surgery was not statistically different between the groups (p = 0.26).
conclusionDBT-L demonstrates both time and dose savings for the patient compared to SGL without compromising surgical outcome.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.