Use of wire-guided and radio-guided occult lesion localization for non-palpable breast lesions: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of current evidence

Abstract

Breast cancer screening has seen an increase in the detection of non-palpable breast lesions. Wire guided localisation (WGL) and Radio-guided occult lesion localisation (ROLL) are well established modalities of localisation of non-palpable breast lesions in the UK. We aimed to compare the outcomes of WGL and ROLL in this updated meta-analysis. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and LILACS using free text search words as well as relevant MESH-terms. We also searched Medline (02/03/2021), Embase and registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field. Outcomes considered were re-excision rates, margin involvement, specimen volume and weight, accurate localisation of lesions and operative time. We assessed the risk of bias in included studies and performed random effects meta-analyses using Review Manager (version 5.3). Heterogeneity was estimated using the I2-statistic. Nine included studies enrolled 1096 patients undergoing localization in breast surgery (534 in WGL and 562 in ROLL). There was a statistically significant benefit in favour of ROLL for non-involved resection margins (OR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.44-0.97); based on seven studies. Nine trials assessed operative time favouring ROLL (OR 1.95; 95% CI, 0.27-3.63). No significant difference in re-excision rates was reported (OR 1.42; 95% CI, 0.83-2.43) based on seven studies. Current evidence favourably supports ROLL, compared to WGL, with respect to margin involvement, localisation and operative time in the treatment of non-palpable breast lesions.