Trial reportAnnals of surgical oncology2026
A Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Radioguided Occult Lesion Localization (ROLL) and Magnetic Seed Localization for the Localization of Nonpalpable Breast Lesions: Analysis of Surgical Outcomes, Patient's Perception, and Costs.
Trial report in Annals of surgical oncology, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroudAccurate localization of nonpalpable breast lesions in breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is essential for achieving oncological radicality, preserving cosmetic outcomes, and reducing reinterventions for positive margins. Radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) and magnetic seed localization (MSL) are established alternatives to wire-guided methods, but comparative evidence remains limited.
methodsThis prospective, single-centre, randomized clinical trial evaluated the noninferiority of MSL compared with ROLL in achieving negative surgical margins, assessed surgical, organizational, and patient-reported outcomes, and included a costs analysis. A total of 260 women with nonpalpable breast lesions suitable for BCS were enrolled between June 2023 and July 2025 and randomized 1:1 to ROLL or MSL. The primary endpoint was margin negativity. Secondary endpoints included calculated resection ratio (CRR), operative time, complications, hospital stay, reoperation rate, and EQ-5D-5L patient-reported outcomes.
resultsNegative margins were achieved in 97.7% of ROLL and 93.1% of MSL cases (p = 0.14), confirming MSL noninferiority. Median CRR was identical (1.7, p = 0.61). Overall complication rates were comparable (6.2%-MSL vs. 4.7%-ROLL, p = 0.59), although postlocalization hematoma was more frequent with MSL (17% vs. 7%, p = 0.01). Hospital stay was significantly shorter with MSL (1 vs. 2 days, p = 0.001). Operative times were similar, and surgeon experience did not influence margin status, although attendings achieved lower CRR with ROLL. EQ-5D-5L scores were comparable except for "usual activities" dimension, which favoured ROLL.
conclusionsMSL was noninferior to ROLL, with comparable safety and patient-reported outcomes. Magnetic seed localization was found to be costs-saving across all analysed subgroups. Our results show that MSL is an effective alternative for lesion localization in BCS.
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.