A comparison of two non-radioactive alternatives to wire for the localization of non-palpable breast cancers.
PURPOSE: Multiple wire-free technologies for localization of non-palpable breast cancers have emerged as satisfactory alternatives to wire. However, no study has compared two non-radioactive wire-free approaches to one another. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes among LOCalizer™ radiofrequency identification (RFID), SAVI Scout® (SAVI), and wire localization (WL). METHODS: This was a retrospective, cross-sectional cohort study of patients undergoing lumpectomy for non-palpable breast cancer at a single institution between August 2017 and February 2019. Patients were divided into three cohorts based on localization technique: RFID, SAVI or WL. Operative times and average tumor volumes were compared using one-way analysis of variance. Positive margin and re-excision rates were compared with Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Among 104 patients who underwent lumpectomy for non-palpable breast cancer, 33 patients (31.7%) had RFID, 21 (20.2%) had SAVI, and 50 (48.0%) had WL. Operative times were 79 min for RFID, 81 min for SAVI, and 78 min for WL (p = 0.91). Volume of tissue resected was 36.3 cm3, 31.7 cm3, and 35.3 cm3 for RFID, SAVI, and WL, respectively (p = 0.84). Positive margin rates (RFID 3.0% vs SAVI 9.5% vs WL 8.0%, p = 0.67) and re-excision rates (RFID 6.1% vs SAVI 9.5% vs WL 10.0%, p = 0.82) were similar across groups. CONCLUSIONS: Wire-free localization technologies have been compared to WL demonstrating similar efficacy. Our study suggests that RFID and SAVI Scout also perform similarly to one another. Physicians and institutions may consider more nuanced features of each localization system rather than performance alone when choosing a wire-free alternative.
Lee, MK; Sanaiha, Y; Kusske, AM; Thompson, CK; Attai, DJ; Baker, JL; Fischer, CP; DiNome, ML
Volume / Issue
Start / End Page
Electronic International Standard Serial Number (EISSN)
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)