B Schermers1, J A van der Hage2, C E Loo3, M T F D Vrancken Peeters2, H A O Winter-Warnars3, F van Duijnhoven2, B Ten Haken4, S H Muller5, T J M Ruers6. 1. The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Department of Surgery, The Netherlands; University of Twente, MIRA Institute, The Netherlands. Electronic address: bramschermers@gmail.com. 2. The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Department of Surgery, The Netherlands. 3. The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Department of Radiology, Division of Diagnostic Oncology, The Netherlands. 4. University of Twente, MIRA Institute, The Netherlands. 5. The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Department of Clinical Physics, The Netherlands. 6. The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Department of Surgery, The Netherlands; University of Twente, MIRA Institute, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Accurate tumour localisation is essential for breast-conserving surgery of non-palpable tumours. Current localisation technologies are associated with disadvantages such as logistical challenges and migration issues (wire guided localisation) or legislative complexities and high administrative burden (radioactive localisation). We present MAgnetic MArker LOCalisation (MaMaLoc), a novel technology that aims to overcome these disadvantages using a magnetic marker and a magnetic detection probe. This feasibility study reports on the first experience with this new technology for breast cancer localisation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen patients with unifocal, non-palpable breast cancer were recruited. They received concurrent placement of the magnetic marker in addition to a radioactive iodine seed, which is standard of care in our clinic. In a subset of five patients, migration of the magnetic marker was studied. During surgery, a magnetic probe and gammaprobe were alternately used to localise the markers and guide surgery. The primary outcome parameter was successful transcutaneous identification of the magnetic marker. Additionally, data on radiologist and surgeon satisfaction were collected. RESULTS: Magnetic marker placement was successful in all cases. Radiologists could easily adapt to the technology in the clinical workflow. Migration of the magnetic marker was negligible. The primary endpoint of the study was met with an identification rate of 100%. Both radiologists and surgeons reflected that the technology was intuitive to use and that it was comparable to radioactive iodine seed localisation. CONCLUSION: Magnetic marker localisation for non-palpable breast cancer is feasible and safe, and may be a viable non-radioactive alternative to current localisation technologies.
OBJECTIVES: Accurate tumour localisation is essential for breast-conserving surgery of non-palpable tumours. Current localisation technologies are associated with disadvantages such as logistical challenges and migration issues (wire guided localisation) or legislative complexities and high administrative burden (radioactive localisation). We present MAgnetic MArker LOCalisation (MaMaLoc), a novel technology that aims to overcome these disadvantages using a magnetic marker and a magnetic detection probe. This feasibility study reports on the first experience with this new technology for breast cancer localisation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen patients with unifocal, non-palpable breast cancer were recruited. They received concurrent placement of the magnetic marker in addition to a radioactive iodine seed, which is standard of care in our clinic. In a subset of five patients, migration of the magnetic marker was studied. During surgery, a magnetic probe and gammaprobe were alternately used to localise the markers and guide surgery. The primary outcome parameter was successful transcutaneous identification of the magnetic marker. Additionally, data on radiologist and surgeon satisfaction were collected. RESULTS: Magnetic marker placement was successful in all cases. Radiologists could easily adapt to the technology in the clinical workflow. Migration of the magnetic marker was negligible. The primary endpoint of the study was met with an identification rate of 100%. Both radiologists and surgeons reflected that the technology was intuitive to use and that it was comparable to radioactive iodine seed localisation. CONCLUSION: Magnetic marker localisation for non-palpable breast cancer is feasible and safe, and may be a viable non-radioactive alternative to current localisation technologies.
Authors: C Kouriefs; F Georgiades; M Michaelides; K Ioannides; A Kouriefs; P Grange Journal: Ann R Coll Surg Engl Date: 2019-06-03 Impact factor: 1.891
Authors: Winona L Richey; Jon S Heiselman; Ma Luo; Ingrid M Meszoely; Michael I Miga Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2021-08-12 Impact factor: 3.421
Authors: Umar Wazir; Salim Tayeh; Nicholas Perry; Michael Michell; Anmol Malhotra; Kefah Mokbel Journal: In Vivo Date: 2020 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.155
Authors: Melanie Lindenberg; Anne van Beek; Valesca Retèl; Frederieke van Duijnhoven; Wim van Harten Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-05-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: B Schermers; V Franke; E A Rozeman; B A van de Wiel; A Bruining; M W Wouters; W J van Houdt; B Ten Haken; S H Muller; C Bierman; T J M Ruers; C U Blank; A C J van Akkooi Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2019-03-18 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Bianca M den Dekker; Anke Christenhusz; Thijs van Dalen; Lisa M Jongen; Margreet C van der Schaaf; Anneriet E Dassen; Ruud M Pijnappel Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-03-22 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: James R Harvey; Yit Lim; John Murphy; Miles Howe; Julie Morris; Amit Goyal; Anthony J Maxwell Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-02-16 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Aikaterini E Micha; Victoria Sinnett; Kate Downey; Steve Allen; Briony Bishop; Lauren R Hector; Elaine P Patrick; Ruth Edmonds; Peter A Barry; Katherine D C Krupa; Jennifer E Rusby Journal: Breast Cancer Date: 2020-09-24 Impact factor: 4.239