ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2026
A Single-Institution Comparative Analysis of Bracketed Localization for Partial Mastectomy Using Traditional Wire and Wireless Methods.
Article 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe use of multiple wires or wireless seeds to bracket large areas of breast lesions is an effective way to avoid mastectomy in patients. However, direct comparisons between wire and wireless bracketed localization are not well studied. We aimed to compare wireless and wire bracketed localization and identify factors associated with positive or close margins.
methodsPatients undergoing bracketed localization for malignancy from 2019 to 2024 were identified. Data collected included demographics, radiographic features, pathology, and margin status. Patients with benign pathology and those undergoing oncoplastic surgery were excluded. Characteristics were compared between patient groups by localization type and margin status.
resultsIn total, 240 patients were identified. Of these, 175 (72.9%) underwent wire bracketed localization and 65 (27.1%) underwent wireless bracketed localization. There were no significant differences in final margin status, distance from the closest margin, or need for additional surgery. A total of 66 patients (28.5% of wire bracketed localization and 24.6% of wireless bracketed localization) had close or positive margins, which was associated with size of disease, grade, atypical ductal hyperplasia on core biopsy, ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive lobular carcinoma on final pathology, number of biopsy sites, and a lack of discrete mass or calcifications on imaging.
conclusionsIn this large single-institution study, wireless and wire bracketed localization had similar final margin status. Although we could not control completely for selection bias between methods, we were able to demonstrate factors associated with positive or close margins to determine scenarios in which wider margins or additional surgery may be necessary.
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.