Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 17, 2026
Single-Port Robotic-assisted Transaxillary Breast-conserving Surgery: A Prospective, Single-arm, Non-randomized Phase IIa Clinical Trial
Published on: August 19, 2025
Cryoablation-guided breast-conserving surgery: a single-center, retrospective study based on a propensity
Bangjie Wang1, Zirun Yang1, Yuyin Hou1
1Department of Breast Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital with Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Background:
Currently, surgical resection remains the first choice for treating early breast cancer. Cryoablation, a minimally invasive ablative technique, can inactivate the target tumor in situ, after which patients typically require further treatments, including surgery. However, reports are limited on the impact of cryoablation on subsequent breast-conserving surgery (BCS). This study aims to clarify the role of preoperative cryoablation in guiding BCS for early breast cancer, specifically whether cryoablation could influence the rate of positive or close resection margin in BCS.
Methods:
This study retrospectively analyzed the clinical characteristics and treatment data of patients who underwent BCS at our center between December 2024 and December 2025. After propensity score matching (PSM), 111 patients were paired: 37 in the cryoablation group and 74 in the surgery group. The clinical data of both groups were compared to evaluate the feasibility of cryoablation-guided BCS for early-stage breast cancer, its impact on the outcomes of BCS and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB).
Results:
Ultrasound-guided cryoablation was successfully performed under local anesthesia in all 37 patients, with a complete ablation rate of 94.59% [35/37; 95% confidence interval (CI): 82.3-98.5%]. Compared to the surgery group, the cryoablation group had a lower rate of positive or close margin for BCS (5.41% vs. 32.43%, P=0.002), and a higher rate of accurate surgery (83.78% vs. 59.46%, P=0.01). The mean duration of BCS was shorter in the cryoablation group than in the surgery group (76.65±8.17 vs. 86.50±16.29 min, P<0.001). Additionally, the mean post-operative length of stay (LOS) in the cryoablation group was approximately one day shorter than that in the surgery group (1.59 vs. 2.62 days, P<0.001). Furthermore, the success rate of SLNB was 100% in both groups.
Conclusions:
This retrospective study demonstrated that cryoablation-guided BCS was feasible and safe. Compared to standard BCS, cryoablation-guided BCS was associated with a higher accuracy in resection, a lower positive or close margin rate, shorter surgical duration and post-operative LOS. Additionally, cryoablation did not negatively impact the success rate of subsequent SLNB.
