Trial reportBreast cancer research and treatment2024
An exploratory clinical trial of preoperative non-invasive localization before breast-conserving surgery using augmented reality technology.
Trial report in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital twins for non-invasive tumor localization in breast-conserving surgery: a technical pilot study.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2026Article
- Intraoperative measurement of breast-conserving surgery margins: surgical application.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2026Review
- The digital evolution of surgical planning: a systematic review of immersive and interactive technologies.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- Clinical and MRI variables associated with close or positive margins during breast-conserving surgery using MRI projection mapping in breast carcinoma with nonmass enhancement.European journal of radiology open · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Surgical Decision-Making: An Updated and Comprehensive Overview of Precision and Personalization in Current Evidence.Cancer management and research · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis single-center, randomized, prospective, exploratory clinical trial was conducted to assess the clinical efficacy of an augmented reality (AR)-based breast cancer localization imaging solution for patients with breast cancer.
methodsThis clinical trial enrolled 20 women who were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between the ages of 19 and 80, had a single lesion with a diameter ≥ 5 mm but ≤ 30 mm, had no metastases to other organs, and had not received prior chemotherapy. All patients underwent mammography, ultrasound, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative assessment. Patients were randomly assigned to ultrasound-guided skin marking localization (USL) and AR-based localization (ARL) groups (n = 10 in each group). Statistical comparisons between USL and ARL groups were made based on demographics, radiologic features, pathological outcomes, and surgical outcomes using chi-square and Student t-tests.
resultsTwo surgeons performed breast-conserving surgery on 20 patients. Histopathologic evaluation of all patients confirmed negative margins. Two independent pathologists evaluated the marginal distances, and there were no intergroup differences in the readers' estimates (R1, 6.20 ± 4.37 vs. 5.04 ± 3.47, P = 0.519; R2, 5.10 ± 4.31 vs. 4.10 ± 2.38, P = 0.970) or the readers' average values (5.65 ± 4.19 vs. 4.57 ± 2.84, P = 0.509). In comparing the tumor plane area ratio, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of either reader's mean values (R1, 15.90 ± 9.52 vs. 19.38 ± 14.05, P = 0.525; R2, 15.32 ± 9.48 vs. 20.83 ± 12.85, P = 0.290) or the overall mean values of two readers combined (15.56 ± 9.11 vs. 20.09 ± 13.38, P = 0.388). Convenience, safety, satisfaction, and reusability were all superior in the AR localization group (P < 0.001) based on the two surgeons' responses.
conclusionAR localization is an acceptable alternative to ultrasound-guided skin marking with no significant differences in surgical outcomes.
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.