MEthods for LOcalization of Different Types of Breast Lesions

ConditionBreast Cancer
Trial statusRecruiting
Trial phaseNot listed
Trial typeObservational
Biological sexAll
Age18+
SponsorEuropean Breast Cancer Research Association of Surgical Trialists

About this trial

In the last decades, the proportion of breast cancer (BC) patients receiving breast-conserving surgery has increased steadily, reaching 70-80% in developed countries. Since positive resection margins are strongly associated with local recurrence risk, the goal of breast surgery is the complete tumor removal and most national and international guidelines recommend re-operation, either in form of re-excision or mastectomy, until clear margins have been reached. Re-operation rates vary widely, with population-based studies reporting a range of 15-35%, and the necessity for a second surgery can lead to increased patient anxiety, a delay in start of adjuvant treatment, worse cosmetic outcome and increased complication rates and costs. Therefore, re-operation rate has been included as a quality indicator in several countries.

Several imaging-guided techniques have been developed to guide removal of non-palpable breast lesions, the oldest one being preoperative wire placement under ultrasound or mammographic guidance, usually followed by radiography or ultrasound of removed tissue. Newer techniques, such as intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS), radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL), radioactive seed localization (RSL), radar reflector-localization (RRL), magnetic seed localization (MSL), and radiofrequency identification (RFID) tags have been introduced as an alternative to wire-guided localization (WGL).

To date, comparative data on the rates of successful lesion removal, negative margins, re-operation rate and patient's comfort depending on the localization technique used are limited. Further, since some of these studies were funded by the manufacturer of the marker examined, a potential bias cannot be excluded. In the vast majority of the available studies, the patient's perspective with regard to discomfort and pain level has not been evaluated.

The aim of the proposed study is to comparatively evaluate different imaging-guided localization methods used for surgical removal of malignant breast lesions with regard to oncological safety and patient-reported outcomes.

Eligibility criteria

This trial does not accept healthy volunteers

Qualifiers

Signed informed consent form

Malignant breast lesion requiring breast-conserving surgery and imaging-guided localization (either DCIS or invasive breast cancer; multiple or bilateral lesions and the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy are allowed)

Wire-guided localization

Intraoperative ultrasound

Disqualifiers

Patients not suitable for surgical treatment

Patients requiring mastectomy as first surgery

Surgical removal without imaging-guided localization

Trial population

Female and male patients with invasive breast cancer or DCIS scheduled for breast-conserving surgery with an imaging-guided localization

Trial design

Design model

Cohort

Time perspective

Prospective

Treatments tested in this trial

Not listed

Trial groups

7,416 Participants
are grouped into 8 trial groups

8

Trial groups

See each trial group below.

Group A: Wire-guided Localization
Group B: Intraoperative Ultrasound
Group C: Magnetic Localization
Group D: Radar Reflector Localization
Group E: Radiofrequency Localization
Group F: Radioactive Localization
Group G: Ink Localization
Group H: Luminomark Localization

Trial outcomes

Primary outcomes

1

Rate of intended target lesion and/or marker removal, independent of margin status on final histopathology (number of study participants with intended target lesion and/or marker removal, divided by the number of all study participants)

Time frame
2 years
2

Negative resection margin rates (defined as lesion removal with no invasive or non-invasive carcinoma on ink) at first surgery

Number of study participants with a negative resection margin, divided by the number of all study participants

Time frame
2 years

Secondary outcomes

Other outcomes

Sponsors and contacts

Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.