ArticleAnnals of surgery2025
A Randomized, Single-Center, Superiority Trial of Radioactive Seed Localization Versus Wire Localization for Malignant Breast Disease.
Article in Annals of surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Global research trends and thematic evolution of imaging-guided localization in breast cancer surgery: a bibliometric analysis.Gland surgery · 2026Article
- KRAS and TP53 Circulating Tumor DNA are Prognostic in Localized Pancreatic Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCompare radioactive seed localization (RSL) and wire-guided localization (WL) for nonpalpable malignant breast disease.
backgroundWhile WL has been the most common approach for localization of nonpalpable breast tumors, other techniques such as RSL, intraoperative ultrasound, radioactive intraoperative occult lesion localization, hematoma localization, radar localization, and magnetic seed localization have been suggested as safe and efficacious alternatives. However, very few randomized controlled trials have compared these localization techniques.
methodsBetween July 2015 and January 2021, 400 women with nonpalpable malignant breast disease were randomized 1:1 to RSL or WL, stratified by the surgeon and invasive disease status. The primary outcome was initial resection negative margin rates. Secondary outcomes included time efficiencies, cost, and satisfaction.
resultsThere was no significant difference in negative margin rates between RSL and WL [RSL 0.80 (95% CI: 0.75-0.86) vs WL 0.85 (95% CI: 0.80-0.89); P=0.29]. RSL received better patient scores for anxiety [OR=2.62 (95% CI: 1.79-3.84); P<0.01], pain [OR=2.50 (95% CI: 1.69-3.71); P<0.01], and overall satisfaction [OR=3.24 (95% CI: 1.70-6.22); P<0.01] compared with WL. Radiologists and surgeons associated RSL with better convenience [OR=3.32 (95% CI: 1.65-6.69); P<0.01] and satisfaction of surgical procedure conduct [OR=1.67 (95% CI: 1.09-2.58); P=0.02]. Time in radiology did not differ [RSL mean (SD) 12.8±9.5 min vs. WL 11.4±6.0 min; P=0.18]. RSL incurred a $600 higher cost than WL.
conclusionsThe results of the largest randomized controlled trial in the United States support RSL as an acceptable alternative to WL in the treatment of nonpalpable malignant breast disease. While RSL was not superior to WL in achievement of negative margins, patients and providers reported improved satisfaction scores.
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.