ArticleCureus2025
Comparison of the Localizer (RFID) and Wire Localization (WL) Techniques in the Localization of Non-palpable Breast Tumors: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Since the introduction of breast cancer screening programs through mammography, the number of breast tumors requiring surgery has increased, particularly non-palpable tumors. Surgery on non-palpable breast tumors necessitates the use of image-guided preoperative localization methods. These are divided into wire methods, such as Wire Localization (WL), and wireless methods such as the Localizer (radiofrequency identification; RFID). Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. The objective of this study was to compare margin status, re-excision rates, operative time, and device migration between Localizer (RFID) and WL in the surgical management of non-palpable breast tumors. Material and methods A cross-sectional retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent partial mastectomy for non-palpable breast tumors between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2023, at Simone Veil Hospital, Eaubonne, France. Patients were divided into two groups according to the tumor localization technique used. Univariate analyses were performed to assess the relationships between the two groups regarding patient characteristics, surgical parameters, and surgical outcomes. Results Out of 129 patients, 66/129 (51.1%) underwent tumor localization with the Localizer, while 63/129 (48.8%) underwent tumor localization with WL. The rate of positive margins (RFID: 12/66 (18.2%) versus WL: 18/63 (28.6%), p = 0.23), re-excision for positive margins (RFID: 9/66 (13.6%) versus WL: 15/63 (23.8%), p = 0.21), and operative complications (RFID: 14/66 (21.2%) versus WL: 9/63 (14.3%), p = 0.43) were similar between the two groups. The period between device insertion and surgery was 9 (± 15.8) days for the Localizer and 1 (± 0.5) days for WL (p < 0.01). The operative time was 81.1 (± 35.9) minutes when WL was used, compared to 67.9 (± 27.8) minutes for the Localizer (p = 0.02). The migration rate of the device was comparable between the two methods (RFID: 4/66 (6.1%) versus WL: 3/63 (4.8%), p = 1). Age (RFID: 59.9 (± 14.1) versus WL: 62.9 (± 14.3), p = 0.024) and device migration (OR = 1.7, p = 0.04) were associated with margin status. Conclusion In this retrospective cohort, no statistically significant differences were observed between the Localizer and WL in terms of surgical margins or complications. The Localizer, however, provided logistical advantages, including earlier placement and shorter operative time. Importantly, older age and device migration were significantly associated with positive margins, offering clinically relevant insight for surgical planning. Larger prospective or randomized trials are required to confirm whether meaningful differences exist between these localization methods, after which patient-centered outcomes, such as comfort and acceptability, should be further explored.
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.