Shannon Falcon1, R Jared Weinfurtner2, Blaise Mooney3, Bethany L Niell4. 1. H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, 12902 Magnolia Drive, Tampa, FL 33612, USA. Electronic address: Shannon.Falcon@moffitt.org. 2. H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, 12902 Magnolia Drive, Tampa, FL 33612, USA. Electronic address: Robert.Weinfurtner@moffitt.org. 3. H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, 12902 Magnolia Drive, Tampa, FL 33612, USA. Electronic address: Blaise.Mooney@moffitt.org. 4. H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, 12902 Magnolia Drive, Tampa, FL 33612, USA. Electronic address: Bethany.Niell@moffitt.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to determine the frequency of successful SAVI SCOUT® localizations, to identify the factors contributing to unsuccessful procedures, and to provide a problem-solving algorithm to address those factors. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was performed following IRB approval. We included all consecutive patients with SCOUT® reflector placement performed at a single tertiary-care cancer center. Each case was reviewed and the following data were recorded: patient age, breast density, localization target, imaging modality used for guidance, post procedure mammogram reflector to skin and reflector to target distances, presence of the reflector in the specimen radiograph, excisional biopsy pathology and any procedure complications. RESULTS: In 129 women, 152 SAVI SCOUT® reflectors were placed. Most patients had only 1 reflector placed, but 19 (15%) women had multiple reflectors placed for the purposes of bracketing, multiple excisions in 1 breast, bilateral excisions, or any combination thereof. The most common target was a mass (65%) and the most common modality for guidance was ultrasound (73%). SAVI SCOUT® localization was successful in 97%of reflectors, including 89% of reflectors targeting axillary lymph nodes. The most common failure encountered was the inability to obtain a signal in the radiology suite, due to (1) excessive target depth for the radiology suite handpiece and console, (2) obscuration by a hematoma, or (3) faulty reflector. No post-operative complications occurred. CONCLUSION: The SAVI SCOUT® surgical guidance system is an accurate and reliable method for localization of non-palpable breast lesions, bracketing, and axillary lymph nodes.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to determine the frequency of successful SAVI SCOUT® localizations, to identify the factors contributing to unsuccessful procedures, and to provide a problem-solving algorithm to address those factors. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was performed following IRB approval. We included all consecutive patients with SCOUT® reflector placement performed at a single tertiary-care cancer center. Each case was reviewed and the following data were recorded: patient age, breast density, localization target, imaging modality used for guidance, post procedure mammogram reflector to skin and reflector to target distances, presence of the reflector in the specimen radiograph, excisional biopsy pathology and any procedure complications. RESULTS: In 129 women, 152 SAVI SCOUT® reflectors were placed. Most patients had only 1 reflector placed, but 19 (15%) women had multiple reflectors placed for the purposes of bracketing, multiple excisions in 1 breast, bilateral excisions, or any combination thereof. The most common target was a mass (65%) and the most common modality for guidance was ultrasound (73%). SAVI SCOUT® localization was successful in 97%of reflectors, including 89% of reflectors targeting axillary lymph nodes. The most common failure encountered was the inability to obtain a signal in the radiology suite, due to (1) excessive target depth for the radiology suite handpiece and console, (2) obscuration by a hematoma, or (3) faulty reflector. No post-operative complications occurred. CONCLUSION: The SAVI SCOUT® surgical guidance system is an accurate and reliable method for localization of non-palpable breast lesions, bracketing, and axillary lymph nodes.
Authors: Kristy Kummerow Broman; David Joyce; Odion Binitie; G Douglas Letson; Ricardo J Gonzalez; Junsung Choi; John E Mullinax Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-10-18 Impact factor: 4.339
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: 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