Rachel K Voss1, Erin P Ward1, Haydee Ojeda-Fournier2, Sarah L Blair3. 1. Department of Surgery, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, UC San Diego Health, San Diego, CA, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA. slblair@ucsd.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preoperative breast and lung markers have significant drawbacks, including migration, patient discomfort, and scheduling difficulties. SignalMark is a novel localizer device with a unique signal on Doppler ultrasound. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate intraoperative identification of SignalMark microspheres compared with HydroMARK® clips. We also assessed the safety and efficacy of SignalMark in the lung. METHODS: Twelve breasts of lactating pigs were injected with SignalMark or HydroMARK® by a breast radiologist, and subsequently identified using a standard ultrasound machine by three surgeons blinded to marker location. Time to identification of each marker was recorded, with a maximum allotted time of 300 s. To further demonstrate efficacy in lung parenchyma, a second cohort of pigs underwent lung injections. RESULTS: A total of eight SignalMark markers and four HydroMARK® clips were placed in pig breasts. Overall, the surgeons correctly identified SignalMark 95.8% of the time (n = 23/24) and HydroMARK® clips 41.7% of the time (n = 5/12) within 300 s (p < 0.001). The mean time to identification was significantly faster for SignalMark, at 80.8 ± 20.1 s, than for HydroMARK®, at 209.4 ± 35.2 s (p < 0.002). For the lung injections, all 10 SignalMark markers were visible on Doppler ultrasound at the time of placement, and at the 7- and 21-day time points. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons identified SignalMark in significantly less time than HydroMARK® clips in a simulated intraoperative setting, and SignalMark was easily viewed in the lung. These results suggest that SignalMark is a feasible option for efficient intraoperative localization of non-palpable breast and lung tumors using ultrasound guidance.
BACKGROUND: Preoperative breast and lung markers have significant drawbacks, including migration, patient discomfort, and scheduling difficulties. SignalMark is a novel localizer device with a unique signal on Doppler ultrasound. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate intraoperative identification of SignalMark microspheres compared with HydroMARK® clips. We also assessed the safety and efficacy of SignalMark in the lung. METHODS: Twelve breasts of lactating pigs were injected with SignalMark or HydroMARK® by a breast radiologist, and subsequently identified using a standard ultrasound machine by three surgeons blinded to marker location. Time to identification of each marker was recorded, with a maximum allotted time of 300 s. To further demonstrate efficacy in lung parenchyma, a second cohort of pigs underwent lung injections. RESULTS: A total of eight SignalMark markers and four HydroMARK® clips were placed in pig breasts. Overall, the surgeons correctly identified SignalMark 95.8% of the time (n = 23/24) and HydroMARK® clips 41.7% of the time (n = 5/12) within 300 s (p < 0.001). The mean time to identification was significantly faster for SignalMark, at 80.8 ± 20.1 s, than for HydroMARK®, at 209.4 ± 35.2 s (p < 0.002). For the lung injections, all 10 SignalMark markers were visible on Doppler ultrasound at the time of placement, and at the 7- and 21-day time points. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons identified SignalMark in significantly less time than HydroMARK® clips in a simulated intraoperative setting, and SignalMark was easily viewed in the lung. These results suggest that SignalMark is a feasible option for efficient intraoperative localization of non-palpable breast and lung tumors using ultrasound guidance.
Authors: Erin P Ward; James Wang; Natalie Mendez; Jian Yang; Chris Barback; Jessica Wang-Rodriguez; William Trogler; Andrew C Kummel; Sarah Blair Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2016-09-30 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Peter J Lovrics; Charlie H Goldsmith; Nicole Hodgson; David McCready; Gabriela Gohla; Colm Boylan; Sylvie Cornacchi; Michael Reedijk Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-04-30 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Nicole M A Krekel; Max H Haloua; Alexander M F Lopes Cardozo; Roos H de Wit; Anne Marie Bosch; Louise M de Widt-Levert; Sandra Muller; Henk van der Veen; Elisabeth Bergers; Elly S M de Lange de Klerk; Sybren Meijer; M Petrousjka van den Tol Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2012-12-04 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Lori F Gentile; Amber Himmler; Christiana M Shaw; Amber Bouton; Elizabeth Vorhis; Julia Marshall; Lisa R P Spiguel Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-06-23 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Christine U Lee; Matthew W Urban; A Lee Miller; Susheil Uthamaraj; James W Jakub; Gina K Hesley; Benjamin G Wood; Nathan J Brinkman; James L Herrick; Nicholas B Larson; Michael J Yaszemski; James F Greenleaf Journal: Eur Radiol Exp Date: 2022-06-17