Search

Background Previous studies have suggested improved efficiency and patient outcomes with 125I seed compared with hookwire localization (HWL) in breast-conserving surgery, but high-level evidence of superior surgical outcomes is lacking. The aim of this multicentre pragmatic RCT was to compare re-excision and positive margin rates after localization using 125I seed or hookwire in women with non-palpable breast cancer. Methods Between September 2013 and March 2018, women with non-palpable breast cancer eligible for breast-conserving surgery were assigned randomly to preoperative localization using 125I seeds or hookwires. Randomization was stratified by lesion type (pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or other) and study site. Primary endpoints were rates of re-excision and margin positivity. Secondary endpoints were resection volumes and weights. Results A total of 690 women were randomized at eight sites; 659 women remained after withdrawal (125I seed, 327; HWL, 332). Mean age was 60.3 years in the 125I seed group and 60.7 years in the HWL group, with no difference between the groups in preoperative lesion size (mean 13.2 mm). Lesions were pure DCIS in 25.9 per cent. The most common radiological lesion types were masses (46.9 per cent) and calcifications (28.2 per cent). The localization modality was ultrasonography in 65.5 per cent and mammography in 33.7 per cent. The re-excision rate after 125I seed localization was significantly lower than for HWL (13.9 versus 18.9 per cent respectively; P = 0.019). There were no significant differences in positive margin rates, or in specimen weights and volumes. Conclusion Re-excision rates after breast-conserving surgery were significantly lower after 125I seed localization compared with HWL. Registration number: ACTRN12613000655741 (http://www.ANZCTR.org.au/).

Background The aim was to determine the cost-effectiveness of radioguided occult lesion localization using 125I-labelled seeds (125I seeds) versus hookwire localization in terms of incremental cost per reoperation avoided for women with non-palpable breast cancer undergoing breast-conserving surgery. Methods This study was based on a multicentre RCT with eight study sites comprising seven public hospitals and one private hospital. An Australian public health system perspective was taken. The primary effectiveness outcome for this study was reoperations avoided. Cost-effectiveness was expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to explore uncertainty. The willingness to pay (additional cost of localization using 125I seeds justified by reoperation cost avoided) was set at the weighted, top-down cost of reoperation. Costs were in 2019 Australian dollars ($1 was equivalent to €0.62). Results The reoperation rate was 13.9 (95 per cent confidence interval 10.7 to 18.0) per cent for the 125I seed group and 18.9 (14.8 to 23.8) per cent for the hookwire localization group. The ICER for 125I seed versus hookwire localization was $4474 per reoperation averted. The results were most sensitive to uncertainty around the probability of reoperation. Accounting for transition probability and cost uncertainty for 125I seed localization, there was a 77 per cent probability that using 125I seeds would be cost-effective, with a willingness to pay of $7693 per reoperation averted. Conclusion Radioguided occult lesion localization using 125I seeds is likely to be cost-effective, because the marginal (additional) cost compared with hookwire localization is less than the cost of reoperations avoided.