Table 1.
Comparison of different localization methods regarding oncological outcomes.
| Successful Excision | Positive Margins 1 | Re-Operation Rate | Data Quality | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wire-guided localization (WGL) | 99% [9,12] | 15–21% [9,10,12,14] | 14–19% [9,10] | High; Meta-analyses of RCTs available (LoE 1a) |
| Radioactive seed localization (RSL) | 100% [9] | 12–13% [9,10] | 10–15% [9,10] | High; Meta-analyses of RCTs available (LoE 1a) |
| Radio-guided Occult Lesion Localization (ROLL) | 99.5% [9] | 12–17% [9,10] | 9–10% [9,10] | High; Meta-analyses of RCTs available (LoE 1a) |
| Magseed | 99.8% [12] | 13.3% [12] | 12% [12] | Large cohort studies [12], no RCTs (LoE 2b) |
| Sirius Pintuition | 100% [15] | 8% [15] | 4% [15] | Small cohort studies, one small RCT 3 [15] (LoE 2b) |
| MOLLI | 100% [16] | 0% [16] | 0% [16] | Small phase I cohort study (LoE 4) |
| TAKUMI | 100% [17] | 7.3% [17] | 4.9% [17] | Small cohort study (LoE 4) |
| SAVI SCOUT | 99.64% [4] | n.d. | 12.8% [4] | Systemic review and pooled analysis [4] (LoE 2b) |
| LOCalizer | 99.9% [18] | n.d. | 13.9% [18] | Systemic review and pooled analysis [18] (LoE 2b) |
| EnVisio | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | Case report [19] (LoE 5) |
| Intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS) | 100% [8] 2 | 5% [8,10,11] 2 | 5–7% [8,10] 2 | High; Meta-analyses of RCTs available (LoE 1a) 2 |
| Carbon | 79.0–99.1% [20,21,22,23,24] | 75.0–96.4% [21,22,25] | 7.1% [25] | Cohort studies, no RCTs (LoE 4) |
1 Positive margins were defined differently across studies; whenever possible, positive margin was defined as no tumor on ink. 2 Patients in RCTs on IOUS had ultrasound-visible lesions; therefore, the patient collective might be different from those in studies on other localization methods 3 The RCT studied MaMaLoc; the technology was further developed and is now available as Sirius Pintuition.