ArticleBJS open2025
Comparative effectiveness of preoperative localization techniques for non-palpable breast lesions: multicentre real-world study.
Article in BJS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe increasing detection of non-palpable breast lesions has made accurate preoperative localization essential to optimize breast-conserving surgery. Although multiple localization methods exist, there is still a lack of robust, large-scale, multicentre evaluations comparing different techniques.
methodsThe LOCALIZATION01 study compares real-world data from 13 breast units in Italy and Switzerland on the impact of localization techniques on breast-conserving surgery for non-palpable lesions between 2016 and 2024. Four localization techniques were compared: wire-guided (WGL), radio-guided (ROLL), magnetic seed (MSL), and carbon (CL). The main outcomes were margin status, calculated resection ratio, postoperative complications, and surgical time. Subgroup analyses were performed for body mass index, lesion morphology and histopathology.
resultsIn total, 3241 patients were enrolled (ROLL 985, MSL 592, WGL 1079, and CL 585). ROLL achieved the highest rate of negative surgical margins, significantly outperforming MSL, WGL, and CL (97.5% versus 94.7% versus 94.5% versus 90.6%, respectively; P < 0.05). CL was associated with the highest postoperative complications rate (16.7%) versus ROLL (4.1%), MSL (4.5%), and WGL (2.1%) (P < 0.0001). The surgical time for MSL was significantly shorter when compared with WGL (46 versus 70 minutes (min); P < 0.0001) and CL (55 min; P < 0.0001). WGL had the most favourable calculated resection ratio (2.4), followed by MSL (2.6), ROLL (2.7), and CL (3.0). Multivariable analysis identified CL as an independent predictor of positive margins (odds ratio 1.82; P = 0.004), whereas ROLL was protective (odds ratio 0.45; P = 0.009).
conclusionROLL and MSL outperformed WGL and CL across multiple endpoints. CL data revealed objective limitations that suggest caution in its use. A personalized approach considering lesion morphology, body mass index, and logistics is recommended.
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.