OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to summarize and update evidence on whether intra-operative ultrasonography (IOUS) guided breast conserving surgery (BCS) can be more effective than wire-guided or palpation-guided excision for both nonpalpable, as well as palpable breast cancers in achieving tumor free negative margins after lumpectomy for breast cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Comprehensive searches were done systematically through PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and Google scholar databases. Statistical analysis was done using STATA version 13.0. The primary outcome was proportion of patients that achieved tumor free resection margins after lumpectomy. Effect sizes were reported as pooled relative risks (RR). All estimates were reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS: A total of 20 RCTs with 2519 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Use of intra-operative ultrasonography was associated with 1.18 times higher chances [RR 1.18; 95% CI, 1.10-1.27] of attaining a tumor free margin for all breast cancers, 1.16 times higher chances [RR 1.16; 95% CI, 1.10-1.23] of attaining a tumor free margin for all palpable breast cancers and 1.20 times higher chances [RR 1.20; 95% CI, 1.05-1.38] of attaining a tumor free margin for all non-palpable breast, compared to wire guided or palpation guided localization. There was no evidence of publication bias.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings support that intra-operative ultrasonography increases the chances of obtaining negative margins for tissue resected in breast conserving surgeries. The findings support the observations of previous reviews published in this aspect nearly half a decade back.Free PDF Download
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License
To cite this article
Q.-X. Zhang, F. Wang, X.-Z. Wang
Effectiveness of intra-operative ultrasonography, compared to conventional techniques, in attaining tumour free lumpectomy margins in breast cancer: a meta-analysis
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci
Vol. 25 - N. 3