Preoperative localisation of nonpalpable breast lesions using magnetic markers in a tertiary cancer centre.
Breast neoplasms
Magnetics
Margins of excision
Preoperative (procedure)
Reoperation
Journal
European radiology experimental
ISSN: 2509-9280
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol Exp
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101721752
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 07 2022
06 07 2022
Historique:
received:
15
12
2021
accepted:
19
04
2022
entrez:
5
7
2022
pubmed:
6
7
2022
medline:
8
7
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
We retrospectively evaluated safety and performance of magnetic seed localisation of nonpalpable breast lesions. We reviewed records of patients with nonpalpable breast lesions preoperative localised by placing magnetic Magseed® marker between February 2019 and December 2020. During surgery, Sentimag® magnetic probe was used to localise the marker and guide surgery. Safety, lesion identification and excision with tumour with free margins and re-excision rate were assessed. A total of 77 Magseed® devices were placed into the breasts of 73 patients, 44 under ultrasound and 33 under stereotactic guidance (4 bilateral). All devices were retrieved as were the target lesions. Magnetic marker placement was successful in all cases without any adverse event. Intraoperative identification and excision of the localised lesion were successful in 77 of 77 of cases (100%). In three cases (all of them calcifications with the seed placed under stereotactic guidance), the seed did not reach the exact target position of the biopsy clip; thus, larger excision was needed, with localisation failure attributed to incorrect clip insertion (n = 1) or to clip dislocation (n = 2). Migration of the marker was negligible in all patients. Complete excision after the initial procedure with at least 1-mm disease-free margins was obtained in 74 out of 77 (96.1%) lesions. The re-excision rate was 3 out of 77 (4%). Magnetic marker localisation for nonpalpable breast lesions was safe, reliable, and effective in terms of lesion identification, excision with tumour-free margins and re-excision rate.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
We retrospectively evaluated safety and performance of magnetic seed localisation of nonpalpable breast lesions.
METHODS
We reviewed records of patients with nonpalpable breast lesions preoperative localised by placing magnetic Magseed® marker between February 2019 and December 2020. During surgery, Sentimag® magnetic probe was used to localise the marker and guide surgery. Safety, lesion identification and excision with tumour with free margins and re-excision rate were assessed.
RESULTS
A total of 77 Magseed® devices were placed into the breasts of 73 patients, 44 under ultrasound and 33 under stereotactic guidance (4 bilateral). All devices were retrieved as were the target lesions. Magnetic marker placement was successful in all cases without any adverse event. Intraoperative identification and excision of the localised lesion were successful in 77 of 77 of cases (100%). In three cases (all of them calcifications with the seed placed under stereotactic guidance), the seed did not reach the exact target position of the biopsy clip; thus, larger excision was needed, with localisation failure attributed to incorrect clip insertion (n = 1) or to clip dislocation (n = 2). Migration of the marker was negligible in all patients. Complete excision after the initial procedure with at least 1-mm disease-free margins was obtained in 74 out of 77 (96.1%) lesions. The re-excision rate was 3 out of 77 (4%).
CONCLUSIONS
Magnetic marker localisation for nonpalpable breast lesions was safe, reliable, and effective in terms of lesion identification, excision with tumour-free margins and re-excision rate.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35790602
doi: 10.1186/s41747-022-00280-2
pii: 10.1186/s41747-022-00280-2
pmc: PMC9256869
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
28Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology.
Références
Park HL, Kim LS (2011) The current role of vacuum assisted breast biopsy system in breast disease. J Breast Cancer 14:1–7. https://doi.org/10.4048/jbc.2011.14.1.1
doi: 10.4048/jbc.2011.14.1.1
pubmed: 21847387
pmcid: 3148506
Rahusen FD, Bremers AJ, Fabry HF, van Amerongen AH, Boom RP, Meijer S (2002) Ultrasound-guided lumpectomy of nonpalpable breast cancer versus wire-guided resection: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg Oncol 9:994–998. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02574518
doi: 10.1007/BF02574518
pubmed: 12464592
DeSantis CE, Fedewa SA, Goding Sauer A, Kramer JL, Smith RA, Jemal A (2016) Breast cancer statistics, 2015: convergence of incidence rates between black and white women. CA Cancer J Clin 66:31–42. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21320
doi: 10.3322/caac.21320
pubmed: 26513636
Seifi A, Axelrod H, Nascimento T, et al (2009) Migration of guidewire after surgical breast biopsy: an unusual case report. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 32:1087–1090. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00270-009-9620-9
Harvey JR, Lim Y, Murphy J, et al (2008) Safety and feasibility of breast lesion localization using magnetic seeds (Magseed): a multi-centre, open-label cohort study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 169:531–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4709-y
Thill M, Kurylcio A, Welter R, et al (2014) The Central-European SentiMag study: sentinel lymph node biopsy with superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) vs. radioisotope. Breast 23:175–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2014.01.004
Welch HG, Prorok PC, O'Malley AJ, Kramer BS (2016) Breast-cancer tumor size, overdiagnosis, and mammography screening effectiveness. N Engl J Med 375:1438–1147. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1600249
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1600249
pubmed: 27732805
Government of Canada. Manufacturer: Endomagnetics Ltd. Medical Devices Active Licence Listing 2019; https://health-products.canada.ca/mdalllimh/information.do?companyId_idCompanie=139243&lang=eng , Accessed 22 May 2019.
Endomag+. Magseed. 2015; http://www.endomag.com/magseed , Accessed 2019 May 22.
Liao X, Zhang D (2021) The 8th edition American Joint Committee on Cancer staging for hepato-pancreato-biliary cancer: a review and update. Arch Pathol Lab Med 145:543–553. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2020-0032-RA
doi: 10.5858/arpa.2020-0032-RA
pubmed: 32223559
Lamb LR, Bahl M, Specht MC, D'Alessandro HA, Lehman CD (2018) Evaluation of a nonradioactive magnetic marker wireless localization program. AJR Am J Roentgenol 211:940–945. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.18.19637
doi: 10.2214/AJR.18.19637
pubmed: 30085842
Pohlodek K, Foltin M, Meciarova I, Ondrias F (2018) Simultaneous use of magnetic method in localization of impalpable breast cancer and sentinel lymph nodes detection: initial experience. Nanomedicine 13:3075–3081. https://doi.org/10.2217/nnm-2018-0220
doi: 10.2217/nnm-2018-0220
pubmed: 30431397
Price ER, Khoury AL, Esserman LJ, Joe BN, Alvarado MD (2018) Initial clinical experience with an inducible magnetic seed system for preoperative breast lesion localization. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 210:913–917. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18345
doi: 10.2214/AJR.17.18345
pubmed: 29446680
Schermers B, van der Hage JA, Loo CE, et al (2017) Feasibility of magnetic marker localisation for non-palpable breast cancer. Breast 33:50–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2017.03.003
Shams S, Lippold K, Blohmer JU, Röhle R, Kühn F, Karsten MM (2021) A pilot study evaluating the effects of Magtrace® for sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer patients regarding care process optimization, reimbursement, surgical time, and patient comfort compared with standard technetium99. Ann Surg Oncol 28:3232–3240
doi: 10.1245/s10434-020-09280-1
https://www.nice.org.uk/advice/mib263/resources/magtrace-and-sentimag-for-locating-sentinel-lymph-nodes-pdf-2285965752199621 Accessed 22 May 2019.
Gera R, Tayeh S, Al-Reefy S, Mokbel K (2020) Evolving role of Magseed in wireless localization of breast lesions: systematic review and pooled analysis of 1,559 procedures. Anticancer Res 40:1809–1815. https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.14135
doi: 10.21873/anticanres.14135
pubmed: 32234869
Hayes MK (2017) Update on preoperative breast localization. Radiol Clin North Am 55:591–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2016.12.012
doi: 10.1016/j.rcl.2016.12.012
pubmed: 28411682
Barra FR, Sobrinho AB, Barra RR, et al (2018) Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) for detecting residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a comparison with breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Biomed Res Int 2018:8531916 https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/8531916
Winter A, Engels S, Goos P, et al (2019) Accuracy of magnetometer-guided sentinel lymphadenectomy after intraprostatic injection of superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles in prostate cancer: the SentiMag Pro II study. Cancers (Basel) 12:32. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12010032
Pediconi F, Galati F, Bernardi D, et al (2020) Breast imaging and cancer diagnosis during the COVID-19 pandemic: recommendations from the Italian College of Breast Radiologists by SIRM. Radiol Med 125(10):926–930. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-020-01254-3
Dua SM, Gray RJ, Keshtgar M (2011) Strategies for localisation of impalpable breast lesions. Breast 20:246–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2011.01.007
D'Angelo A, Orlandi A, Bufi E, Mercogliano S, Belli P, Manfredi R (2021) Automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) compared to handheld ultrasound (HHUS) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) in the early assessment of breast cancer during neoadjuvant chemotherapy: an emerging role to monitoring tumor response? Radiol Med 126(4):517–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-020-01319-3