Jane Keating1, Julia Tchou1, Olugbenga Okusanya1, Carla Fisher1, Rebecca Batiste2, Jack Jiang1, Gregory Kennedy1, Shuming Nie3, Sunil Singhal1. 1. Department of Thoracic Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 2. Department of Pathology, University of Pennsylvania, Perelman School of Medicine, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Departments of Biomedical Engineering and Chemistry, Emory University, 1364 Clifton Road, Atlanta, Georgia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Current methods of intraoperative breast cancer margin assessment are labor intensive, not fully reliable, and time consuming; therefore novel strategies are necessary. We hypothesized that near infrared (NIR) intraoperative molecular imaging using systemic indocyanine green (ICG) would be helpful in discerning tumor margins. METHODS: A mammary cancer cell line, 4T1, was used to establish tumors in mouse flanks (n = 60). Tumors were excised 24 hr after intravenous ICG. Assessment of residual tumor in the wound bed was performed using a combination of NIR imaging and traditional method (by visual inspection and palpation) versus traditional method alone. Next we performed a clinical trial to evaluate the role of NIR imaging after systemic ICG for the margin assessment of 12 patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery. RESULTS: Traditional margin assessment identified 30% of positive margins while NIR imaging identified 90% of positive margins. In our clinical trial, all tumors were detected by NIR imaging and there was fluorescent evidence of residual tumor in the tumor bed in 6 of the 12 patients. None of these patients had positive margins on pathology. CONCLUSIONS: Systemic ICG reliably accumulates in breast cancers in murine models as well as human breast cancer. While NIR imaging is helpful for detection of retained tumor margins in our animal model, intraoperative imaging for precise margin detection will need further refinement before clinical value can be obtained. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:508-514.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Current methods of intraoperative breast cancer margin assessment are labor intensive, not fully reliable, and time consuming; therefore novel strategies are necessary. We hypothesized that near infrared (NIR) intraoperative molecular imaging using systemic indocyanine green (ICG) would be helpful in discerning tumor margins. METHODS: A mammary cancer cell line, 4T1, was used to establish tumors in mouse flanks (n = 60). Tumors were excised 24 hr after intravenous ICG. Assessment of residual tumor in the wound bed was performed using a combination of NIR imaging and traditional method (by visual inspection and palpation) versus traditional method alone. Next we performed a clinical trial to evaluate the role of NIR imaging after systemic ICG for the margin assessment of 12 patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery. RESULTS: Traditional margin assessment identified 30% of positive margins while NIR imaging identified 90% of positive margins. In our clinical trial, all tumors were detected by NIR imaging and there was fluorescent evidence of residual tumor in the tumor bed in 6 of the 12 patients. None of these patients had positive margins on pathology. CONCLUSIONS: Systemic ICG reliably accumulates in breast cancers in murine models as well as humanbreast cancer. While NIR imaging is helpful for detection of retained tumor margins in our animal model, intraoperative imaging for precise margin detection will need further refinement before clinical value can be obtained. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:508-514.
Authors: Jane J Keating; Jeffrey J Runge; Sunil Singhal; Sarah Nims; Ollin Venegas; Amy C Durham; Gary Swain; Shuming Nie; Philip S Low; David E Holt Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-11-07 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Andrew D Newton; Jarrod D Predina; Christopher J Corbett; Lydia G Frenzel-Sulyok; Leilei Xia; E James Petersson; Andrew Tsourkas; Shuming Nie; Edward J Delikatny; Sunil Singhal Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2018-11-22 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Andrew D Newton; Jarrod D Predina; Lydia G Frenzel-Sulyok; Michael H Shin; Yiqing Wang; Sunil Singhal Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Stefan Harmsen; Nutte Teraphongphom; Michael F Tweedle; James P Basilion; Eben L Rosenthal Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Suman B Mondal; Shengkui Gao; Nan Zhu; LeMoyne Habimana-Griffin; Walter J Akers; Rongguang Liang; Viktor Gruev; Julie Margenthaler; Samuel Achilefu Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2017-02-17 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Nicholas E Wojtynek; Madeline T Olson; Timothy A Bielecki; Wei An; Aaqib M Bhat; Hamid Band; Scott R Lauer; Edibaldo Silva-Lopez; Aaron M Mohs Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Samuel G Armato; Kevin G Blyth; Jane J Keating; Sharyn Katz; Selina Tsim; Johan Coolen; Eyjolfur Gudmundsson; Isabelle Opitz; Anna K Nowak Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2016-09-05 Impact factor: 5.705