ArticleBJS open2026
The iBRA-NET localization study: international IDEAL 2a/2b multicentre cohort study comparing the safety and effectiveness of wire- and radar-guided localization for impalpable breast lesions.
Article in BJS open, 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWire-guided localizations have been the historical standard for breast lesion localization; however, they have logistical constraints and can dislodge in the preoperative period. Radar-guided localization has the potential to uncouple localization from the day of surgery, but the technique needs to be evaluated in a direct comparison with wire-guided localization to ensure efficacy and safety.
methodsThe iBRA-NET localization study is a prospective platform IDEAL 2a/2b study comparing wire-guided localization with new generation localization devices. This arm describes SCOUT® radar localization for impalpable breast lesions performed between June 2021 and December 2024, compared with a historical cohort of wire-guided localization performed between August 2018 and August 2020. Primary outcome was identification of the index lesion in the excision specimen. Secondary endpoints included safety (complications), margin re-excision, magnetic resonance imaging bloom size, and specimen weight.
resultsData were accrued from 1297 radar localized patients in 27 units. Index lesion identification was 95.2% in radar-guided excisions versus 99.1% in wire-guided excisions (P = 0.001). In a sensitivity analysis excluding patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy, identification rates were 98.9% versus 99.6% (P = 0.114). For a subset of patients having a simple lumpectomy for a unifocal, unilateral breast lesion with no neoadjuvant treatment (1627), positive margins were seen in the main excision specimen in 1003 (15.0%) wire-guided versus 624 (9.0%) radar-guided excisions (P < 0.001). Re-excision was required in 131 (13.2%) wire-guided versus 91 (14.7%) radar-guided excisions (P = 0.442). There was a significant difference in specimen weight/size2 (0.138 g/mm2 wire-guided localization versus 0.182 g/mm2 radar; P < 0.001). The median start time for surgery was earlier in the day for radar-guided localizations compared with wire-guided (12:27 versus 13:40; P < 0.001). All radar placements in axillary nodes (13) led to successful nodal retrieval.
conclusionSCOUT® radar localizations are a safe and effective localization technique in both the breast and axilla, with outcomes comparable to wires. There were demonstrable logistical advantages in operative start time when using a radar reflector.
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.