Barbara L Smith1,2, Michele A Gadd3, Conor R Lanahan3, Upahvan Rai3, Rong Tang3, Travis Rice-Stitt4, Andrea L Merrill3, David B Strasfeld5, Jorge M Ferrer5, Elena F Brachtel4, Michelle C Specht3. 1. Division of Surgical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. blsmith1@mgh.harvard.edu. 2. Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Breast Cancer, Yawkey 9A, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. blsmith1@mgh.harvard.edu. 3. Division of Surgical Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. 4. Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. 5. Lumicell, Inc, 80 William Street #260, Wellesley, 02481, MA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Obtaining tumor-free surgical margins is critical to prevent recurrence in breast-conserving surgery but it remains challenging. We assessed the LUM Imaging System for real-time, intraoperative detection of residual tumor. METHODS: Lumpectomy cavity walls and excised specimens of breast cancer lumpectomy patients were assessed with the LUM Imaging System (Lumicell, Inc., Wellesley MA) with and without intravenous LUM015, a cathepsin-activatable fluorescent agent. Fluorescence at potential sites of residual tumor was evaluated with a sterile hand-held probe, displayed on a monitor and correlated with histopathology. RESULTS: Background autofluorescence was assessed in excised specimens from 9 patients who did not receive LUM015. In vivo lumpectomy cavities and excised specimens were then imaged in 15 women undergoing breast cancer surgery who received no LUM015, 0.5, or 1 mg/kg LUM015 (5 women per dose). Among these, 11 patients had invasive carcinoma with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and 4 had only DCIS. Image acquisition took 1 s for each 2.6-cm-diameter surface. No significant background normal breast fluorescence was identified. Elevated fluorescent signal was seen from invasive cancers and DCIS. Mean tumor-to-normal signal ratios were 4.70 ± 1.23 at 0.5 mg/kg and 4.22 ± 0.9 at 1.0 mg/kg (p = 0.54). Tumor was distinguished from normal tissue in pre-and postmenopausal women and readings were not affected by breast density. Some benign tissues produced fluorescent signal with LUM015. CONCLUSION: The LUM Imaging System allows rapid identification of residual tumor in the lumpectomy cavity of breast cancer patients and may reduce rates of positive margins.
PURPOSE: Obtaining tumor-free surgical margins is critical to prevent recurrence in breast-conserving surgery but it remains challenging. We assessed the LUM Imaging System for real-time, intraoperative detection of residual tumor. METHODS: Lumpectomy cavity walls and excised specimens of breast cancer lumpectomy patients were assessed with the LUM Imaging System (Lumicell, Inc., Wellesley MA) with and without intravenous LUM015, a cathepsin-activatable fluorescent agent. Fluorescence at potential sites of residual tumor was evaluated with a sterile hand-held probe, displayed on a monitor and correlated with histopathology. RESULTS: Background autofluorescence was assessed in excised specimens from 9 patients who did not receive LUM015. In vivo lumpectomy cavities and excised specimens were then imaged in 15 women undergoing breast cancer surgery who received no LUM015, 0.5, or 1 mg/kg LUM015 (5 women per dose). Among these, 11 patients had invasive carcinoma with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and 4 had only DCIS. Image acquisition took 1 s for each 2.6-cm-diameter surface. No significant background normal breast fluorescence was identified. Elevated fluorescent signal was seen from invasive cancers and DCIS. Mean tumor-to-normal signal ratios were 4.70 ± 1.23 at 0.5 mg/kg and 4.22 ± 0.9 at 1.0 mg/kg (p = 0.54). Tumor was distinguished from normal tissue in pre-and postmenopausal women and readings were not affected by breast density. Some benign tissues produced fluorescent signal with LUM015. CONCLUSION: The LUM Imaging System allows rapid identification of residual tumor in the lumpectomy cavity of breast cancerpatients and may reduce rates of positive margins.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Image-guided surgery; Intraoperative tumor detection; Lumpectomy surgery
Authors: Suzanne Coopey; Barbara L Smith; Stephanie Hanson; Julliette Buckley; Kevin S Hughes; Michele Gadd; Michelle C Specht Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-06-01 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: O Riedl; F Fitzal; N Mader; P Dubsky; M Rudas; M Mittlboeck; M Gnant; R Jakesz Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2008-08-15 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: M Clarke; R Collins; S Darby; C Davies; P Elphinstone; V Evans; J Godwin; R Gray; C Hicks; S James; E MacKinnon; P McGale; T McHugh; R Peto; C Taylor; Y Wang Journal: Lancet Date: 2005-12-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Laurence E McCahill; Richard M Single; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Heather S Feigelson; Ted A James; Tom Barney; Jessica M Engel; Adedayo A Onitilo Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Andrea L Merrill; Julliette Buckley; Rong Tang; Elena Brachtel; Upahvan Rai; James Michaelson; Amy Ly; Michelle C Specht; Yukako Yagi; Barbara L Smith Journal: Breast J Date: 2016-11-17 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Neslihan Cabioglu; Kelly K Hunt; Aysegul A Sahin; Henry M Kuerer; Gildy V Babiera; S Eva Singletary; Gary J Whitman; Merrick I Ross; Frederick C Ames; Barry W Feig; Thomas A Buchholz; Funda Meric-Bernstam Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2007-01-28 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Melodi Javid Whitley; Diana M Cardona; Alexander L Lazarides; Ivan Spasojevic; Jorge M Ferrer; Joan Cahill; Chang-Lung Lee; Matija Snuderl; Dan G Blazer; E Shelley Hwang; Rachel A Greenup; Paul J Mosca; Jeffrey K Mito; Kyle C Cuneo; Nicole A Larrier; Erin K O'Reilly; Richard F Riedel; William C Eward; David B Strasfeld; Dai Fukumura; Rakesh K Jain; W David Lee; Linda G Griffith; Moungi G Bawendi; David G Kirsch; Brian E Brigman Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2016-01-06 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Jeffrey K Mito; Jorge M Ferrer; Brian E Brigman; Chang-Lung Lee; Rebecca D Dodd; William C Eward; Lisa F Marshall; Kyle C Cuneo; Jessica E Carter; Shalini Ramasunder; Yongbaek Kim; W David Lee; Linda G Griffith; Moungi G Bawendi; David G Kirsch Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-03-21 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Shadi A Esfahani; Pedram Heidari; Melanie H Kucherlapati; Jorge M Ferrer; Raju S Kucherlapati; Umar Mahmood Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-10-15
Authors: Daan G J Linders; Okker D Bijlstra; Laura C Fallert; Denise E Hilling; Ethan Walker; Brian Straight; Taryn L March; A Rob P M Valentijn; Martin Pool; Jacobus Burggraaf; James P Basilion; Alexander L Vahrmeijer; Peter J K Kuppen Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2022-08-24 Impact factor: 3.484
Authors: Feredun Azari; Gregory Kennedy; Elizabeth Bernstein; Constantinos Hadjipanayis; Alexander Vahrmeijer; Barbara Smith; Eben Rosenthal; Baran Sumer; Jie Tian; Eric Henderson; Amy Lee; Quyen Nguyen; Summer Gibbs; Brian Pogue; Daniel Orringer; Cleopatra Charalampaki; Linda Martin; Janos Tanyi; Major Lee; John Y Lee; Sunil Singhal Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2021-05 Impact factor: 3.170
Authors: Connor W Barth; Vidhi M Shah; Lei G Wang; Alexander L Antaris; Alwin Klaassen; Jonathan Sorger; Deepa A Rao; Darcy A Kerr; Eric R Henderson; Adam W G Alani; Summer L Gibbs Journal: Adv Ther (Weinh) Date: 2021-05-13