Joost J Pouw1, Maarten R Grootendorst2,3, Roland Bezooijen4, Caroline A H Klazen4, Wieger I De Bruin5, Joost M Klaase2, Margaret A Hall-Craggs6, Michael Douek3, Bennie Ten Haken1. 1. 1 MIRA Institute for Biomedical Technology and Technical Medicine, University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands. 2. 2 Department of Surgery, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, Netherlands. 3. 3 Research Oncology, Division of Cancer Studies, King's College London, London, UK. 4. 4 Department of Radiology, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, Netherlands. 5. 5 Department of Nuclear Medicine, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, Netherlands. 6. 6 Department of Radiology, University College London Hospital, London, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) with a superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) tracer was shown to be non-inferior to the standard combined technique in the SentiMAG Multicentre Trial. The MRI subprotocol of this trial aimed to develop a magnetic alternative for pre-operative lymphoscintigraphy (LS). We evaluated the feasibility of using MRI following the administration of magnetic tracer for pre-operative localization of sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) and its potential for non-invasive identification of lymph node (LN) metastases. METHODS: Patients with breast cancer scheduled to undergo SLNB were recruited for pre-operative LS, single photon emission CT (SPECT)-CT and SPIO MRI. T1 weighted turbo spin echo and T2 weighted gradient echo sequences were used before and after interstitial injection of magnetic tracer into the breast. SLNs on MRI were defined as LNs with signal drop and direct lymphatic drainage from the injection site. LNs showing inhomogeneous SPIO uptake were classified as metastatic. During surgery, a handheld magnetometer was used for SLNB. Blue or radioactive nodes were also excised. The number of SLNs and MR assessment of metastatic involvement were compared with surgical and histological outcomes. RESULTS: 11 patients were recruited. SPIO MRI successfully identified SLNs in 10 of 11 patients vs 11 of 11 patients with LS/SPECT-CT. One patient had metastatic involvement of four LNs, and this was identified in one node on pre-operative MRI. CONCLUSION: SPIO MRI is a feasible technique for pre-operative localization of SLNs and, in combination with intraoperative use of a handheld magnetometer, provides an entirely radioisotope-free technique for SLNB. Further research is needed for the evaluation of MRI characterization of LN involvement using subcutaneous injection of magnetic tracer. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study is the first to demonstrate that an interstitially administered magnetic tracer can be used both for pre-operative imaging and intraoperative SLNB, with equal performance to imaging and localization with radioisotopes.
OBJECTIVE: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) with a superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO) tracer was shown to be non-inferior to the standard combined technique in the SentiMAG Multicentre Trial. The MRI subprotocol of this trial aimed to develop a magnetic alternative for pre-operative lymphoscintigraphy (LS). We evaluated the feasibility of using MRI following the administration of magnetic tracer for pre-operative localization of sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) and its potential for non-invasive identification of lymph node (LN) metastases. METHODS:Patients with breast cancer scheduled to undergo SLNB were recruited for pre-operative LS, single photon emission CT (SPECT)-CT and SPIO MRI. T1 weighted turbo spin echo and T2 weighted gradient echo sequences were used before and after interstitial injection of magnetic tracer into the breast. SLNs on MRI were defined as LNs with signal drop and direct lymphatic drainage from the injection site. LNs showing inhomogeneous SPIO uptake were classified as metastatic. During surgery, a handheld magnetometer was used for SLNB. Blue or radioactive nodes were also excised. The number of SLNs and MR assessment of metastatic involvement were compared with surgical and histological outcomes. RESULTS: 11 patients were recruited. SPIO MRI successfully identified SLNs in 10 of 11 patients vs 11 of 11 patients with LS/SPECT-CT. One patient had metastatic involvement of four LNs, and this was identified in one node on pre-operative MRI. CONCLUSION: SPIO MRI is a feasible technique for pre-operative localization of SLNs and, in combination with intraoperative use of a handheld magnetometer, provides an entirely radioisotope-free technique for SLNB. Further research is needed for the evaluation of MRI characterization of LN involvement using subcutaneous injection of magnetic tracer. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study is the first to demonstrate that an interstitially administered magnetic tracer can be used both for pre-operative imaging and intraoperative SLNB, with equal performance to imaging and localization with radioisotopes.
Authors: Sven C A Michel; Thomas M Keller; Johannes M Fröhlich; Daniel Fink; Rosmarie Caduff; Burkhardt Seifert; Borut Marincek; Rahel A Kubik-Huch Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Anees B Chagpar; Robert C Martin; Charles R Scoggins; David J Carlson; Alison L Laidley; Souzan E El-Eid; Terre Q McGlothin; Robert D Noyes; Phillip B Ley; Todd M Tuttle; Kelly M McMasters Journal: Surgery Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: R Weissleder; P F Hahn; D D Stark; G Elizondo; S Saini; L E Todd; J Wittenberg; J T Ferrucci Journal: Radiology Date: 1988-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Marc Thill; Andrzej Kurylcio; Rebekka Welter; Viviana van Haasteren; Britta Grosse; Gilles Berclaz; Wojciech Polkowski; Nik Hauser Journal: Breast Date: 2014-01-29 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Renata Madru; Pontus Kjellman; Fredrik Olsson; Karin Wingårdh; Christian Ingvar; Freddy Ståhlberg; Johan Olsrud; Jimmy Lätt; Sarah Fredriksson; Linda Knutsson; Sven-Erik Strand Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-02-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: F Noushi; A J Spillane; R F Uren; R Cooper; S Allwright; K L Snook; D Gillet; A M Pearce; V Gebski Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2013-07-18 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Aidan Cousins; Chris Tsopelas; George Balalis; Sarah K Thompson; Dylan Bartholomeusz; A Bruce Wedding; Benjamin Thierry Journal: J Mater Sci Mater Med Date: 2018-05-29 Impact factor: 3.896
Authors: C G Varallyay; G B Toth; R Fu; J P Netto; J Firkins; P Ambady; E A Neuwelt Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-05-11 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Salim Si-Mohamed; David P Cormode; Daniel Bar-Ness; Monica Sigovan; Pratap C Naha; Jean-Baptiste Langlois; Lara Chalabreysse; Philippe Coulon; Ira Blevis; Ewald Roessl; Klaus Erhard; Loic Boussel; Philippe Douek Journal: Nanoscale Date: 2017-11-30 Impact factor: 7.790
Authors: Prashant Chandrasekharan; Zhi Wei Tay; Xinyi Yedda Zhou; Elaine Yu; Ryan Orendorff; Daniel Hensley; Quincy Huynh; K L Barry Fung; Caylin Colson VanHook; Patrick Goodwill; Bo Zheng; Steven Conolly Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-06-21 Impact factor: 3.039